Roman Catholic and The Bible.
Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.
I think the solution to the sabbath question in a church without a central teaching authority would be that recommended by Paul to the Romans (in 14:1-5). Some of them were keeping a sabbath. Others were not. Paul did not force conformity of one group to the convictions of the other. He only said they should not despise or judge each other, and should follow their consciences. This means that there is no universal rule, binding upon all Christians, that would either command or forbid sabbath observance. Whenever this is the case with any matter, upon which the Bible does not seem to speak clearly enough to justify universal forced compliance, then the liberty that Paul enjoins must prevail.
-
darinhouston
- Posts: 3123
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am
Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.
Excellent! Would the same apply to something like women pastors? To me, the subject is quite clear, but there are some who have a commitment to scripture who have derived a teaching that would permit them to be pastors -- I don't understand how, exactly, but certainly that's not the sort of thing that we would have "liberty" towards, is it? If not, how to we avoid divisions over such a thing?
Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.
It does not appear that the advocacy of women as pastors has the same historic status of controversy through the centuries that sabbath-keeping and certain other things have, which might argue for less tolerance of this deviation from orthodoxy. The modern issue seems, in many cases, to be driven almost entirely by a concern to conform to the dominant culture. I usually think of that as a bad basis for the church adopting any practice.
On the other hand, some groups (e.g. The Salvation Army; Foursquare Gospel Churches, etc.) were beginning to have women in leadership before feminism became culturally dominant—so it may not be that all who push this agenda are entirely culture-bound. Some clearly regard the matter as a question of "justice," which is clearly a legitimate biblical concern, and they may, therefore, have a right heart in the matter. Although the exegesis that is offered in support of women as pastors is flimsy in the extreme, I have known Christians who know so little about exegesis as to think it convincing.
While I have no difficulty differentiating, in my mind, between the respective bases of Paul's teaching about women wearing veils and his teaching about women as bishops, I can see why some people would not find it easy to sort such things out. Some people cannot see why, if we relax the head-covering requirement, we can't, on the same basis, reconsider everything Paul said about women's roles. I do not think that the advocacy of women as elders has an exegetical leg to stand on, but I cannot blame some Christians for being led by propaganda to believe it to be all right. Therefore, I would feel that I was being unjustifiably divisive if I were to break fellowship with a brother or sister who was convinced from scripture that women should sometimes lead the church.
I would disagree (except in emergency situations, as when the only Christian in a village is a woman, or where all Christian men are thoroughly unfit) and would probably not join an assembly that failed to observe Paul's teaching on this subject, but I would not wish to disfellowship them, nor would I necessarily keep my distance from their church (that is, I might occasionally attend). I would endeavor not to be critical of well-intentioned women who have naively assumed leadership positions. It would be like attending any church where I had disagreements about the structure or administration of their body. I could fellowship uncritically with the people, but I could not feel it to be a normative church, nor the best place to rear my children.
What this means, in practical terms, is that I would not consider "women-as-church-leaders" to be an issue to divide the body of Christ over, but, like many other issues, I would like to keep the biblical dialogue open between myself and those who see the matter differently. If they are sincerely seeking to submit to the word of God, they might come to see things differently—or even to convince me, if they can marshall the scriptural exegesis to do the job. If those who differ with me are not open to ongoing biblical dialogue, and potential correction, then I would not feel comfortable about their leadership, regardless of their gender.
I do think, however, that the unity of Christ's Body should be able to endure the strain of this particular controversy, assuming all concerned wish to continue learning, in submission to the word of God.
On the other hand, some groups (e.g. The Salvation Army; Foursquare Gospel Churches, etc.) were beginning to have women in leadership before feminism became culturally dominant—so it may not be that all who push this agenda are entirely culture-bound. Some clearly regard the matter as a question of "justice," which is clearly a legitimate biblical concern, and they may, therefore, have a right heart in the matter. Although the exegesis that is offered in support of women as pastors is flimsy in the extreme, I have known Christians who know so little about exegesis as to think it convincing.
While I have no difficulty differentiating, in my mind, between the respective bases of Paul's teaching about women wearing veils and his teaching about women as bishops, I can see why some people would not find it easy to sort such things out. Some people cannot see why, if we relax the head-covering requirement, we can't, on the same basis, reconsider everything Paul said about women's roles. I do not think that the advocacy of women as elders has an exegetical leg to stand on, but I cannot blame some Christians for being led by propaganda to believe it to be all right. Therefore, I would feel that I was being unjustifiably divisive if I were to break fellowship with a brother or sister who was convinced from scripture that women should sometimes lead the church.
I would disagree (except in emergency situations, as when the only Christian in a village is a woman, or where all Christian men are thoroughly unfit) and would probably not join an assembly that failed to observe Paul's teaching on this subject, but I would not wish to disfellowship them, nor would I necessarily keep my distance from their church (that is, I might occasionally attend). I would endeavor not to be critical of well-intentioned women who have naively assumed leadership positions. It would be like attending any church where I had disagreements about the structure or administration of their body. I could fellowship uncritically with the people, but I could not feel it to be a normative church, nor the best place to rear my children.
What this means, in practical terms, is that I would not consider "women-as-church-leaders" to be an issue to divide the body of Christ over, but, like many other issues, I would like to keep the biblical dialogue open between myself and those who see the matter differently. If they are sincerely seeking to submit to the word of God, they might come to see things differently—or even to convince me, if they can marshall the scriptural exegesis to do the job. If those who differ with me are not open to ongoing biblical dialogue, and potential correction, then I would not feel comfortable about their leadership, regardless of their gender.
I do think, however, that the unity of Christ's Body should be able to endure the strain of this particular controversy, assuming all concerned wish to continue learning, in submission to the word of God.
-
darinhouston
- Posts: 3123
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am
Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.
That's helpful -- thanks, Steve.
I think the bottom line for Tom may be that it can get messy at times, but having a Roman church doesn't make things neat, either. We're broken vessels working things out with some liberty to do it wrong in so many ways both individually and corporately and thankfully God's grace is sufficient even for these things where we might screw it up as long as we are striving to be true to scripture and personally avoiding division while always working towards unity. This is why the notion of semper reformata is so vital, I think.
I think the bottom line for Tom may be that it can get messy at times, but having a Roman church doesn't make things neat, either. We're broken vessels working things out with some liberty to do it wrong in so many ways both individually and corporately and thankfully God's grace is sufficient even for these things where we might screw it up as long as we are striving to be true to scripture and personally avoiding division while always working towards unity. This is why the notion of semper reformata is so vital, I think.
Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.
Steve, you seem, to me anyway, to be going around in circles. You say that "Doctrine" is equivalent to the word "teaching.". And "The people continued daily in the apostles' "teaching" (Acts 2:42).". "What did the apostles teach the people?", " the better answer must be that the apostles 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)".steve wrote:Tom,
You wrote:
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).I need some clarification. Is sound doctrine, teaching or is it character? You seem to be saying both. Please clarify.
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.
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.As long as we are all following Jesus that's all that matters!?
So the way I see your statement is; Doctrine is the teaching of the Apostles that were appointed by Jesus to teach all the things that He has commanded which is the doctrine He taught them. Maybe your doctrine and mine are something different. I see doctrine as what you have explained and also that of Acts 15.
Tom
Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.
Darin,darinhouston wrote:That's helpful -- thanks, Steve.
I think the bottom line for Tom may be that it can get messy at times, but having a Roman church doesn't make things neat, either. We're broken vessels working things out with some liberty to do it wrong in so many ways both individually and corporately and thankfully God's grace is sufficient even for these things where we might screw it up as long as we are striving to be true to scripture and personally avoiding division while always working towards unity. This is why the notion of semper reformata is so vital, I think.
Once again from what you have written, why is the Catholic Church wrong and you all are right! According to your own statement , "... as long as we are striving to be true to scripture...". I can't think of another Church that better meets this statement.
Tom
Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.
Note to RND,
You will find that I have deleted your last two posts on this thread, as well as my replies to them. I did this for two reasons:
1) You were continuing to hijack this thread on Roman Catholicism to push your sabbatarian agenda. There are threads set apart for that topic, and Darin had already requested that, if you were going to continue on that topic, you should do so at another thread.
2) You continue to post long articles by other people, even though you have been told several times by members here that that is not what this forum is for. It is for real people to dialogue—not for idealogues who have shown up here just to push their favorite doctrine to fill our pages with cut-and-paste articles from other websites, when they themselves are apparently no longer able to hold up their end of the argument.
You are very near to being banned, because you simply dominate the forum to the point that hardly anyone else seems to participate anymore. I believe I understand why they do not...because I would have been driven elsewhere were I not obligated to moderate here.
You apparently have little to do with your time other than to perpetuate strife over your favorite few issues. You always insist on having the last word, even when you have long-since run out of things to say. You wear out your correspondents by simply continuing to add posts that take the topic no further forward, but which seem to require responses from people who are busier than you, and cannot spend their whole days posting on the internet. Your knowledge of the Bible, it seems, ranks you among the lowest 10% of our participants, and yet, you think you have the most to say.
The people here are accustomed to an atmosphere characterized by
1) Open-minded Christians who are searching the scriptures without an ax to grind;
2) Intelligent discussion, where a person presents actual biblical arguments for his/her position, with his/her own insights and in his/her own words, and then similarly responds to the arguments that others present. Preferably these people actually understand what an argument is, and know when they have presented one, and when they have not;
3) People who only post and initiate new threads when there is something of interest or importance to discuss—rather than simply posting something everyday on as many threads as possible, so as to be the dominant personality in every discussion;
4) People who show a bit of doctrinal humility, and are not trying to convert everyone to their narrow viewpoint.
These are the things that have attracted many of our members here over the years. Your participation here has been in violation of every one of these principles, and has changed the environment to such an extent that the forum now seems like "The RND Show." If the personality and insights of RND were pleasant or impressive, this might not drive people away so much. However, you came here without a clue as to what we do here, and just decided to transform the environment into something that many of us find obnoxious and unpleasant. I am not willing to sacrifice the long-term participants here in order to give you your own forum. If you cannot fit in to what we are trying to do here, please find someplace where your type of idealogues are the standard fare.
Also, if you make any more condescending and rude remarks to any other participants here, they will be your last words at this forum.
You will find that I have deleted your last two posts on this thread, as well as my replies to them. I did this for two reasons:
1) You were continuing to hijack this thread on Roman Catholicism to push your sabbatarian agenda. There are threads set apart for that topic, and Darin had already requested that, if you were going to continue on that topic, you should do so at another thread.
2) You continue to post long articles by other people, even though you have been told several times by members here that that is not what this forum is for. It is for real people to dialogue—not for idealogues who have shown up here just to push their favorite doctrine to fill our pages with cut-and-paste articles from other websites, when they themselves are apparently no longer able to hold up their end of the argument.
You are very near to being banned, because you simply dominate the forum to the point that hardly anyone else seems to participate anymore. I believe I understand why they do not...because I would have been driven elsewhere were I not obligated to moderate here.
You apparently have little to do with your time other than to perpetuate strife over your favorite few issues. You always insist on having the last word, even when you have long-since run out of things to say. You wear out your correspondents by simply continuing to add posts that take the topic no further forward, but which seem to require responses from people who are busier than you, and cannot spend their whole days posting on the internet. Your knowledge of the Bible, it seems, ranks you among the lowest 10% of our participants, and yet, you think you have the most to say.
The people here are accustomed to an atmosphere characterized by
1) Open-minded Christians who are searching the scriptures without an ax to grind;
2) Intelligent discussion, where a person presents actual biblical arguments for his/her position, with his/her own insights and in his/her own words, and then similarly responds to the arguments that others present. Preferably these people actually understand what an argument is, and know when they have presented one, and when they have not;
3) People who only post and initiate new threads when there is something of interest or importance to discuss—rather than simply posting something everyday on as many threads as possible, so as to be the dominant personality in every discussion;
4) People who show a bit of doctrinal humility, and are not trying to convert everyone to their narrow viewpoint.
These are the things that have attracted many of our members here over the years. Your participation here has been in violation of every one of these principles, and has changed the environment to such an extent that the forum now seems like "The RND Show." If the personality and insights of RND were pleasant or impressive, this might not drive people away so much. However, you came here without a clue as to what we do here, and just decided to transform the environment into something that many of us find obnoxious and unpleasant. I am not willing to sacrifice the long-term participants here in order to give you your own forum. If you cannot fit in to what we are trying to do here, please find someplace where your type of idealogues are the standard fare.
Also, if you make any more condescending and rude remarks to any other participants here, they will be your last words at this forum.
Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.
Steve, I was responding to a post you made that was directed at me. It seems that now you consider "hijacking" a thread the answering direct queries. Steve, if you don't want answers from someone don't ask questions!steve wrote:Note to RND,
You will find that I have deleted your last two posts on this thread, as well as my replies to them. I did this for two reasons:
1) You were continuing to hijack this thread on Roman Catholicism to push your sabbatarian agenda. There are threads set apart for that topic, and Darin had already requested that, if you were going to continue on that topic, you should do so at another thread.
The information that was posted was in an attempt to show you that your insistence on what Romans 14 means is simply incorrect. I posted information from Messianics, Seventh-day Baptist's, and Protestant commentator Matthew Henry that clearly show that Paul was not discussing the sabbath in Romans 14.2) You continue to post long articles by other people, even though you have been told several times by members here that that is not what this forum is for. It is for real people to dialogue—not for idealogues who have shown up here just to push their favorite doctrine to fill our pages with cut-and-paste articles from other websites, when they themselves are apparently no longer able to hold up their end of the argument.
Keep this in mind Steve. I did not direct these queries regarding Romans 14 to you, you were the one that addressed me.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860
You Are Israel
Sabbath Truth
Heavenly Sanctuary
You Are Israel
Sabbath Truth
Heavenly Sanctuary
-
darinhouston
- Posts: 3123
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am
Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.
Tom, I didn't suggest the Catholic Church is wrong on all doctrines -- I think it's got things right that many evangelicals have got wrong, but those have to be debated one at a time. What I find "wrong" in the context of this dialogue is the notion that the RC church is an authority that can determine what scripture means, and that one cannot hold a doctrine (even rightly) that differs from some official teaching of the RC church. The only thing I suggested above is that having such an authority doesn't negate the difficulties of mixed messages and unresolved theologies (or unity of belief). Besides, I'm not sure one can say the RC church has always strived to be true to scripture throughout history. None have..tom wrote:Darin,darinhouston wrote:That's helpful -- thanks, Steve.
I think the bottom line for Tom may be that it can get messy at times, but having a Roman church doesn't make things neat, either. We're broken vessels working things out with some liberty to do it wrong in so many ways both individually and corporately and thankfully God's grace is sufficient even for these things where we might screw it up as long as we are striving to be true to scripture and personally avoiding division while always working towards unity. This is why the notion of semper reformata is so vital, I think.
Once again from what you have written, why is the Catholic Church wrong and you all are right! According to your own statement , "... as long as we are striving to be true to scripture...". I can't think of another Church that better meets this statement.
Tom
Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.
Darin,darinhouston wrote:Tom, I didn't suggest the Catholic Church is wrong on all doctrines -- I think it's got things right that many evangelicals have got wrong, but those have to be debated one at a time. What I find "wrong" in the context of this dialogue is the notion that the RC church is an authority that can determine what scripture means, and that one cannot hold a doctrine (even rightly) that differs from some official teaching of the RC church. The only thing I suggested above is that having such an authority doesn't negate the difficulties of mixed messages and unresolved theologies (or unity of belief). Besides, I'm not sure one can say the RC church has always strived to be true to scripture throughout history. None have..tom wrote:Darin,darinhouston wrote:That's helpful -- thanks, Steve.
I think the bottom line for Tom may be that it can get messy at times, but having a Roman church doesn't make things neat, either. We're broken vessels working things out with some liberty to do it wrong in so many ways both individually and corporately and thankfully God's grace is sufficient even for these things where we might screw it up as long as we are striving to be true to scripture and personally avoiding division while always working towards unity. This is why the notion of semper reformata is so vital, I think.
Once again from what you have written, why is the Catholic Church wrong and you all are right! According to your own statement , "... as long as we are striving to be true to scripture...". I can't think of another Church that better meets this statement.
Tom
You're making statements again that have holes in them. You say, "I didn't suggest the Catholic Church is wrong on all doctrines..." but in your statement we are wrong on certain doctrines. We are right on some but wrong on others, correct?
Here's where you make no sense, "... as long as we are striving to be true to scripture...". So if we are all trying to be true to Scripture then how can you say anyone is wrong? I gave an example of the Sabbath observance, just as an example. I didn't bring it up to get off subject but as you can see others don't see eye to eye on that either and using the Scriptures alone it has no definitive answer. If I were to mention whether Jesus is God we would have the same disagreement! If you use the Bible only you really get messy!
As I have said before, God did not leave us to be in endless debate. He gave us the Church, " That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
Tom