Roman Catholic and The Bible.

[Jill]

.

[darinhouston]

Some may seem "too busy" or closed, unless for some superficial and momentary fellowship or merely conversion purposes. It's been impossible to bring up "church" or "scripts" any more at gatherings. (Too much of TNP I think).

You may find it interesting, karen, that what you say is also true even of most evangelical churches along with your LDS experience.

[popeman]

Boy, you guys have to relax alittle. I said "real or imagined" for Pete's sake but brought this up for a matter of discussion. The point is still "if" I felt you were a liar (again, real or imagined) what Church can we take this issue to? You, Steve, default to some benign answer "take it to your church since that is all you care about" as if that is the answer to scripture. Actually it was an empty answer, so then I need to re-pharse that. Since you recognize only "your Church" when it comes scripture solving an issue of Christian-Christian (you make a distinct distinction between Christians by virttue of the Church they belong to) sin then what church do you belong to?

As for doctrine, it is not a matter of staying away from the subject but merely that you brought up "doctrine" that all Christians believe in so there is no argument. I thought you might bring up something else which would have been worth discussing.

So, what Church do you belong to? Does it have a name, a place and regular meeting time? Peace Popeman

[steve]

You, Steve, default to some benign answer "take it to your church since that is all you care about" as if that is the answer to scripture. Actually it was an empty answer, so then I need to re-pharse that. Since you recognize only "your Church" when it comes scripture solving an issue of Christian-Christian (you make a distinct distinction between Christians by virttue of the Church they belong to) sin then what church do you belong to?...So, what Church do you belong to? Does it have a name, a place and regular meeting time?

I have explained to you, in a prior post, that you and I have very different understandings of the word "Church." It may not be possible for me to make it clear to you, since it is a spiritual concept, which, quite possibly, cannot be understood by one with an entirely institutional and ritualistic frame of reference.

In scripture, the "Church" is the body of Christ, comprised of all of Christ's disciples. It has no central location. It's Head is in heaven, and its membership is partly in heaven (having died and gone on ahead of the rest of us) and partly on earth. On earth, it is found wherever two or more gather in the name of Christ. Thus it can be found, in one expression or another, in church meetings of various labels and descriptions, as well as in gatherings that occur regularly (or irregularly) in homes, public halls, parks, etc.

I assume you will think this to be a definition that precludes one person taking another before the whole Church, for disciplinary purposes, but this is true in your denomination as well. You may come under the discipline of one diocese while another diocese elsewhere might be completely oblivious to your case. A priest who is caught being a pedophile in one state, making his continuation at his original diocese impossible and unacceptable, can go to another state, where his sins are unknown, and simply continue as if nothing had happened (this is not merely hypothetical).

The same is true in the Church at large. A person may come under the discipline of one gathering of Christians, only to relocate himself to another group that knows nothing of his situation. It seems logistically impossible that the whole Church (whether conceived as the Roman Catholic Church or as the generic body of Christ) will be able to be simultaneously apprised of a given case of discipline. However, news of a man's crimes may be able to follow him from place to place, and where his past catches up to him, the church in his new location should enforce the discipline of the church he left.

This does not always happen, but it ought to. It should not be possible that a child-abusing priest can go to another state and be accepted there without repentance or reform of his ways. Similarly, it should not be possible for me—if I were brought under discipline among the Christians who know me—to be able to relocate without repentance and continue to fellowship with impunity. Things are not always done in the churches as the Bible instructs, and this is a fault of all churches. The best we can hope for is that the continual presentation of the biblical truth to those who sincerely want to follow Christ will eventually correct some of these shortcomings.

Institutional churches, whether Catholic or Protestant, all have their areas of disobedience—and all seem to welcome into their membership people who are unconverted and living in disobedience. This does not present a model of the church that is encouraging for the future. For this reason, there are many Christians who have abandoned the institutional churches, in order to gather with true Christians and to approximate the teaching of Christ and of scripture in their corporate life. These gatherings also stand in danger of becoming little "institutions" as well, and may need, periodically, to experience reform, repentance, and even (in some cases) disbanding. Thus the new wine continually requires new wine skins. I identify with the wine, not the wineskins.

[tom]

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!).

I need some clarification. Is sound doctrine, teaching or is it character? You seem to be saying both. Please clarify.

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.

This is one of the reasons I'm confused. Jewish legal code would include Sabbath worship and that isn't clear in Scripture. You have given a very wishy washy answer that "I worship every day!". So now every day is Sabbath? Is that Scriptural?

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."

You say it's okay that we never agree on Scripture. That we can go round and round on the teaching authority of the Scripture. Doesn't Scripture say, "Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you,..."? As for the RCC having the same disagreements I will agree. Where we differ is Scripture cannot be the absolute definition of itself and that's why it doesn't say to go to the Scriptures but rather go to the Church! We do have a final court of arbitration, (so to say), just as people wandering in the desert had Moses had his appointed judges.

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).

Okay, I'm lost on what you have written. You can not say you are right and any other Church, including the RCC, are wrong! As long as we are all following Jesus that's all that matters!?

Tom

[steve]

Tom,

You wrote:

I need some clarification. Is sound doctrine, teaching or is it character? You seem to be saying both. Please clarify.

Let me put it very simply: "Doctrine" is equivalent to the word "teaching." We have every reason to suspect that what Paul regarded as sound doctrine (literally, healthy teaching) was nothing else but what the apostles taught the churches. The people continued daily in the apostles' "teaching" (Acts 2:42).

Now the question is, "What was the content of the teaching of the apostles?" or, to put it another way, "What did the apostles teach the people?" Since they were the "teaching authority" of the church, I imagine that you picture them teaching doctrines about the meaning of the Eucharist, about the role of Mary as mediatrix and co-redemptrix, the doctrine of purgatory, etc.

Certainly the better answer must be that the apostles (unlike most modern preachers and priests) taught exactly what Jesus appointed that they should teach.

And what did Jesus tell them to teach? He said, "Make disciples...teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you." (Matt.28:19-20)

Thus, we can be quite certain that the apostles' teaching (or "doctrine") consisted, primarily, of telling people what Jesus commanded His disciples to do. This agrees with the general points I made above, namely, that "doctrine" is not concerned with esoteric theology, but it is practical teaching about how to live as a disciple.

As for your question, "So now every day is Sabbath? Is that Scriptural?", my reply is that sabbath is no longer a day, but a spiritual reality. According to Hebrews 4:9-10, the "keeping of sabbath," for the Christian, is entering into Christ's rest, which I take to be a daily experience (Matt.11:28-30). This is far more scriptural than the Catholic view, which makes Sunday to be the sabbath. There is not a line in scripture to support such a notion. Paul said that sabbath days and other ceremonial laws were mere "shadows" that find their ultimate antitype in Christ (Col.2:16-17). The same is true of the tabernacle and its furniture and rituals (Heb.8:5/10:1). These, and all shadows, disappeared with the coming of the Light of the World.

As long as we are all following Jesus that's all that matters!?

What do you think the disciples in the gospels were doing, besides following Jesus? What else could possibly matter? He alone has the words of eternal life.

[tom]

Certainly the better answer must be that the apostles (unlike most modern preachers and priests) taught exactly what Jesus appointed that they should teach.

And what did Jesus tell them to teach? He said, "Make disciples...teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you." (Matt.28:19-20)

What do you think the disciples in the gospels were doing, besides following Jesus? What else could possibly matter? He alone has the words of eternal life.

The problem is what Jesus appointed them to teach isn't all that clear. If it was, there would be no divisions among us. So the best we can say, according to you, is, "if it isn't spelled out absolutely clear by the writers of the NT every one is to do what is right in their own eyes"?

Tom

[steve]

Tom,

What do you mean, "what Jesus appointed them to teach isn't all that clear"? He said to teach people to observe the things He commanded. He wasn't making it mysterious. You say, "If it was, there would be no divisions among us." Actually, I don't believe there are divisions among those who follow Christ. Immature Christians divide because, in their imaginations, they perceive divisions that God does not recognize. When we "grow up into Him," and "are no longer children," we will recognize that "Christ is not divided" (Eph.4:14-15/1 Cor.1:13).

So the best we can say, according to you, is, "if it isn't spelled out absolutely clear by the writers of the NT every one is to do what is right in their own eyes"?

No, that definitely is not the best we can say. There is such a thing as walking in the Spirit (Rom.8:4/ Gal.5:16), which includes being led by the Spirit (Rom.8:14). This is what we must do at times when things are not spelled out in detail in scripture, as well as when they are. The role of the Spirit in the Christian life seems to be the primary omission in your understanding of Christianity. This is why, whenever I have shown you 1 John 2:27, which says that the Holy Spirit teaches us and makes it unnecessary for us to have any other teaching authority doing our thinking for us, you always ignore it completely. Have you, perhaps, missed the one dimension of the Christian life that actually defines Christian life? Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (2 Cor.3:17). Where the Spirit is not, there is institutional religion.

[darinhouston]

Off-topic thread discussing Sabbath-keeping moved to

http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2611

Christian Life : Fellowship & Worship

[darinhouston]

Though the discussion became off-topic quickly, I hope to bring this back around to the question at hand. Steve, I think tom may have a good question on this front -- the Sabbath discussion itself is a good example, perhaps, of one of those "non-holiness" "non-behavior" related doctrinal questions of some theology that people divide over -- without an official answer from an official church, folks are likely to have (and here have had) disputes over what Christ would have us do in our fellowship and worship or the like. Same could be said for whether to have music and the like.

I have my own opinion, but I would appreciate your answer on this just to get this discussion back on topic to Tom's point.

I would also appreciate Tom's answer of how the RC church would handle something like a dispute as to musical worship -- if one felt that a particular parish was wrongfully using electric guitars in its worship, what would they do about it? Would the magisterium answer such a question? Would there be a uniform application of this among all parishes? If not, then can you say there is doctrinal unity if one elects to worship only in Latin vs. going to a contemporary service with electric guitars and tamborines? Wouldn't it be said that there is a disunity and division among Roman Catholics who have their own beliefs about the matter?