The Theological Unity of All Christians?

[GenghisKhan44]

I am not sure where this post goes, but this area seemed post apt. Correct me if I am wrong.

What I mean by this is: is it or is it not important that what we as Christians, in or outside of denominations and Churches, believe is consistent with each other?

I am not saying we all have to wear the same clothes, eat the same foods, pray the same prayers, or that we all can't eat meat on Fridays.

But I have a problem saying all Christians form a consistent Church on Earth when a Catholic venerates statues of the saints, while a Baptist smashes them with a hammer. Or when the Reformed Churches teach irresistible grace while others teach God's grace is resistible. Or while Catholics and Orthodox turn to their bishops for the correct interpretation of Scripture, Protestants either privately interpret the Bible (which is smaller than the Catholic or Orthodox Bibles, I might add) or have their pastors interpret it for them.

So my question in regards to all this is: how can we all say we have the mind of Christ when one man's, one church's, or one episcopacy's mind contradicts another?

 

[ewoksrule]

Good question. Where this really gets sticky for me is with my regular witnessing to Mormons. Their church claims that their living prophet has direct revelation from God and this is specifically for theology unity. They only have one way to interpret their scriptures and the Bible is only accurate as far as it is interpreted correctly. It feels so weird to say to them, "no your complete clarity and uniformity is wrong. God does not want a unified church where there is a clear priesthood and one doctrine. Our 31 flavors of protestant chaos and disunity among believers is right!"

 

[GenghisKhan44]

Good question. Where this really gets sticky for me is with my regular witnessing to Mormons. Their church claims that their living prophet has direct revelation from God and this is specifically for theology unity. They only have one way to interpret their scriptures and the Bible is only accurate as far as it is interpreted correctly. It feels so weird to say to them, "no your complete clarity and uniformity is wrong. God does not want a unified church where there is a clear priesthood and one doctrine. Our 31 flavors of protestant chaos and disunity among believers is right!"

There is a much-used verse of the Bible in Catholic circles:

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

In a Mormon context, the latter part is especially important. According to Smith, Jesus once told him that all churches were in error - that a Total Apostasy had occured. There was no remnant of the True Church remaining, and Smith had to restart Christ's church.

This verse and many others contradict the doctrine of Total Apostasy.

In John 14:17-19 Christ tells us He will give us the Spirit, and he will not abandon us, and He will be with us forever. If we are to believe in the competency and truth of Christ and His Church, how can be believe Smith?

BUT that does leave the question: what is the true authority Christians ought to stand on? And who has that authority?

 

[Wolfeman]

Independent Baptist believe there is a difference between the Body of Christ (all born again believers) and the Church. The Church is not one universal body made up of all Catholics, Protestants and Baptist (that would be the body) but a collection of independent Churches each with Christ as it's head. This goes against the Universal (or catholic) Invisible Church concept and is one of the reasons the Baptist people have been persecuted by the Catholics and Protestants for the last almost 2000 years.

I can't tell you where a Church stops being a Church and starts becoming just a collection of believers. But I know once your in the Body you will always be in the Body. You can be in or out of the Church which explains why we can all have fellowship and believe differently according to our denominations.

If you don't believe the way I do, I understand and support your right to believe the way you do. Please understand my right to believe the way I do. I don't want to debate Baptist vs Protestant theology right now.

 

[GenghisKhan44]

Independent Baptist believe there is a difference between the Body of Christ (all born again believers) and the Church. The Church is not one universal body made up of all Catholics, Protestants and Baptist (that would be the body) but a collection of independent Churches each with Christ as it's head. This goes against the Universal (or catholic) Invisible Church concept and is one of the reasons the Baptist people have been persecuted by the Catholics and Protestants for the last almost 2000 years.

I can't tell you where a Church stops being a Church and starts becoming just a collection of believers. But I know once your in the Body you will always be in the Body. You can be in or out of the Church which explains why we can all have fellowship and believe differently according to our denominations.

If you don't believe the way I do, I understand and support your right to believe the way you do. Please understand my right to believe the way I do. I don't want to debate Baptist vs Protestant theology right now.

What you describe seems to describe as a Baptist belief seems, in a much more general sense, the Catholic understanding of the Body of Christ. We believe Christ is only found fully in the Catholic Church. However, Orthodox, and in an imperfect way Protestants, by virtue of their baptism, are also a part of this Body. As is anyone who dies never hearing or knowing the Gospel, but who receives God's grace, and tries to believe and obey God as best as they know how (including non-Catholic Christians).

BUT we are still called to proclaim the Gospel, and bring others into the Fullness of the Body of Christ (Mark 16:15-16; Matt 28:19-20). In that way, of spreading the Good News to all the corners of the Earth, publicly, we are not an "invisible" church, but a visible one. You can see the Catholic Church. You can distinguish it from the world. Sometimes physically, but always spiritually.

 

[Durruck]

I appreciate that this often-delicate topic has remained civil, logical, and Christ-centered. I would highly encourage everyone that chooses to participate to carefully choose their words.

Clearly, each of us believe something, and we hold it as true (else, we wouldn't believe it). Remember that if it is a major tenant of faith, it is found directly in Scripture. Even minor tenants have basis in Scripture, although they are often found through interpretation, and therefore subject to being wrong.

I'm not going to tell you exactly what I believe about each topic and why in this post... it would take weeks to fully explain every reasoning I have for the depths of topics I have considered. I weigh in on specific topics as they arise.

In regards to the OP... I believe that if we (as individuals, not churches or denominations) truly dedicate our lives to serving Christ, then we will be saved. Being a Christian isn't about sitting in a pew 1 hour a week, wearing a cross on a necklace, or a lot of the other things we associate with Western Christianity.

I do believe there are many people in churches that think they are safe, but are not (Mt7:21-23). I believe there are people in every background or church - even the ones that we would not expect - that have true faith (Luke 7:9).

With that in mind, I again urge careful consideration to anything you might post in this thread. tearing down other denominations (or groups thereof) is frowned upon. Read John 12:44-50 for general guidelines how we are to treat one another.

 

[GenghisKhan44]

I appreciate that this often-delicate topic has remained civil, logical, and Christ-centered. I would highly encourage everyone that chooses to participate to carefully choose their words.

It's not easy, believe me.

Remember that if it is a major tenant of faith, it is found directly in Scripture. Even minor tenants have basis in Scripture, although they are often found through interpretation, and therefore subject to being wrong.

The question of what is and what is not a major tenet is, of course, a question up for debate. Another question is, in fact, the Scripture we put our bases on. I use the Greek Septuagint and the New Testament, translated as the 1899 Douay-Rheims Bible, and occasionally as the New American or New Jerusalem.

The question, of course, not being the translation itself, but the books we consider canonical. I consider any Bible that does not have the Deuterocanonical Books (Judith, Tobias, 1 and 2 Machabees, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach), Wisdom, and additions to Daniel and Esther) to be lacking and not quite the full Word of God.

So how do we determine the correct canon of Scripture? What determines the canon of the Bible?

I'm not going to tell you exactly what I believe about each topic and why in this post... it would take weeks to fully explain every reasoning I have for the depths of topics I have considered. I weigh in on specific topics as they arise.

That's fine.

In regards to the OP... I believe that if we (as individuals, not churches or denominations) truly dedicate our lives to serving Christ, then we will be saved.

There's truth in that. You could say that about all religious people, for that matter. But there is one thing all Christians are called to do: preach the Gospel. And all denominations and non-denoms have a different Gospel from one another. (Otherwise, why would there be some many different and often exclusive churches?) The difference may be slight, or it may be vast. But to the non-believer, it is nonetheless confusing to see so many who proclaim to follow the same God, Jesus, who all follow Him in different ways.

In other words, while we are called to follow Jesus as best we know how, how much sense does it make if we're following Him in all different directions? Christ preached ONE Gospel and ONE Truth. So why do we allow disagreements on what this ONE truth and ONE Gospel is in things which can have major consequences?

[/quote] I do believe there are many people in churches that think they are safe, but are not (Mt7:21-23). I believe there are people in every background or church - even the ones that we would not expect - that have true faith (Luke 7:9). [/quote]

I absolutely agree with you. I even go so far as to say there are non-Christians who are living out the Gospel better than the average Christian does. And, you surely know, no Church is composed completely of sinless saints. None.

But then why even have churches? Why even be Christians? If each of us follow our own consciences, oughtn't we be able to follow Christ as well as anyone? Why does it matter?

Because 2000 years ago, He walked, talked, and did things, and meant certain things by what He did, spoke, and observed. He died a bloody, agonizing death and laid in a tomb for three days. During that time, He knew the pain all mankind deserves: separation from life. Death. And three days later He rose from Death to show us that God cannot be killed.

So we must obey Jesus, for He has proven He is God. And do as He taught His disciples, most especially the Apostles and their successors, who knew Him best of anyone.

So, then. What is the ONE Gospel Christ preached?

It is the one the Apostles and their successors knew, without a doubt.

With that in mind, I again urge careful consideration to anything you might post in this thread. tearing down other denominations (or groups thereof) is frowned upon. Read John 12:44-50 for general guidelines how we are to treat one another.

I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel.

Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.

For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

If any group, denomination, or ecclesia does not preach the Gospel, they should not exist. Am I wrong?

Still, I have come not to shatter other Christians and groups. (I guess I'll put my sledgehammer away. ) If they are not Christ's, they will shatter themselves for lack of support.

Rather, I have come to determine first the authority upon which we base our faith. Then the Gospel this authority preaches. And finally, who stands on this authority, and who preaches this Gospel.

And I will tell you this: the first answer is not the Bible alone.

 

[ewoksrule]

Oh great...So really this post is about Romanism vs Protestantism?

 

[RiverTigress]

The Bible itself doesn't have the power to save. It serves to convince non-saved people of the power and wisdom of God so that they will seek to get saved, and it serves to help saved people productively live out their lives after they get saved, but it does not save in itself.

There was no canon Bible as we know it when the Gospel message was first preached, and people still got saved. And often people who were the strongest adherent to the currently established scriptures of the time ended up missing the Gospel message completely. The Gospel that leads to salvation is simply that God loves us even though we sin and He sacrificed His Son to die for us to pay the necessary penalty for our sins so we can still enjoy a relationship with Him and the benefits of His love even though we're hopelessly sinful and don't deserve it, and all that's left to do on our part is to accept and believe in that to take our place in the Heavenly family. That's it, nothing else, even if we never look at a Bible after that.

That one thing is the thing that all believers have to adhere to to rightfully claim to be part of the body of Christ. Everything after that just pertains to how effectively and in what ways you're going to be able to live your life for the Lord while you remain here, and different people He may well equip in different ways and with different thought processes to achieve different purposes to reach absolutely everyone in this world that can be reached. Those differences do not affect salvation or membership in the body of Christ, though. Only whether or not you really believe that Jesus was the Son of God and died for your sins to save you.

As for by what authority do I base this on, I base it on the power of the Holy Spirit to give me the peace about it to not lie awake at night questioning whether or not I picked the right system of man to gain access to heaven.

 

[GenghisKhan44]

Oh great...So really this post is about Romanism vs Protestantism?

Not necessarily. It is about authority, and who has authority, and who doesn't. At as you well know, it's not just Protestantism vs. Catholicism. Very often, it's also Protestants against each other. I've heard of the bitter rivalries between Calvinists and Arminians, between Lutherans and Calvinists, between Anabaptists, Seventh-Day Adventists, and other Christians. I have also heard the arguments between Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other non-trinitarians and proper Christians. Truly this discord among Christians of all stripes is pandemic. So I would like to get to the bottom of it, and to the bottom of what the Christian faith, all modernisms, culturalisms, human preferences, and relativism aside, is. Every man, church, and group has a stake in this. The question is: what does it boil down to?

The Bible itself doesn't have the power to save. ...

Forgive me; who claimed this? It certainly was not I, nor anything like it.

There was no canon Bible as we know it when the Gospel message was first preached, and people still got saved. And often people who were the strongest adherent to the currently established scriptures of the time ended up missing the Gospel message completely.

There was an Old Testament, but not yet a written New Testament. That took a few decades to develop. Nonetheless, the Apostles and their disciples thought it important to write the Gospels, and the evangelists thought it important to write the Epistles and Saint John obviously thought it important to write down his Apocalypse (or Revelation). So Scripture is not a bad thing. It is the attitude with which it is received, among other things.

The Gospel that leads to salvation is simply that God loves us even though we sin and He sacrificed His Son to die for us to pay the necessary penalty for our sins so we can still enjoy a relationship with Him and the benefits of His love even though we're hopelessly sinful and don't deserve it, and all that's left to do on our part is to accept and believe in that to take our place in the Heavenly family. That's it, nothing else, even if we never look at a Bible after that.

I agree the Gospel can be summed up very succinctly, in many ways in fact, and does not need a whole book to describe it necessarily. That's often what the Apostles did.

That one thing is the thing that all believers have to adhere to to rightfully claim to be part of the body of Christ. Everything after that just pertains to how effectively and in what ways you're going to be able to live your life for the Lord while you remain here, and different people He may well equip in different ways and with different thought processes to achieve different purposes to reach absolutely everyone in this world that can be reached. Those differences do not affect salvation or membership in the body of Christ, though. Only whether or not you really believe that Jesus was the Son of God and died for your sins to save you.

Now, this is where I think we have a problem, if I understand you correctly. There is more to it than this simple Gospel. Jesus preached repentance surely. But He also preached obedience, and He preached certain things that we are to obey. The Epistles elaborate on this.

1 Corinthians and Galatians come to mind in this particular instance - the unity or discord of the Church. St. Paul saw both the Church in Corinth and the Church in Galatia end up becoming strongly divided into tiny sects. Both times he reprimanded the splintered churches, who obviously respected his authority. And then Saint Paul instructed the Early Churches as to the fine points these Churches were missing the mark on.

Does Christ, now, see the Church in its current state, as divided against itself, as the Churches of Corinth and Galatia were in the infancy of the Church? If Corinth was merely divided based on who baptised them (and they were divided based on much more, if Paul's letter is to be any indication), how much more divided are we today?

As for by what authority do I base this on, I base it on the power of the Holy Spirit to give me the peace about it to not lie awake at night questioning whether or not I picked the right system of man to gain access to heaven.

Are your beliefs consistent with the Apostles? Are they consistent with the Epistles? Are they consistent with Christ and the Gospels? Are they consistent with the Church Christ established?

If you can answer all these questions with a sound and confident affirmative, I have nothing further to say to you as an individual, save that you should go in peace to love and serve the Lord, and that there's no such thing as learning too much about the Lord.

But if there is any strong disagreement between two people, or between two churches, who firmly believe they can answer all the above questions with a "yes", something is wrong. It is not the words of Christ, who said He is the Way, Truth, and Life. Nor is it the words of Paul, who affirms there is but one Gospel. Therefore, who else can it be but one or both of these churches, or people? And how can the Body of Christ be divided against itself and contradictory, and yet still be One undivided, united Body?

-----

I am NOT trying to get everyone to think my way. If you will do the necessary research, I will, also. But I hate this discord between Christians.

Like for example, do we agree that all contraception is wrong? Or only that which is abortifacient? Or is contraception wrong at all?

Are or are not the deuterocanonical books Scripture?

Is the Bishop of Rome to Supreme Pontiff, or merely the first bishop among equals? Do bishops even have any authority? And what makes a man a bishop? Indeed, what is a bishop?

Does God predestine people to either salvation or damnation? Or are we completely free to choose?

Is God's grace irresistible or not?

Is John 6 to be taken literally or figuratively?

Is Genesis 1-3 to be taken literally or figuratively?

Are we to mission to Protestants? Are we to mission to Catholics? Are we even to mission to non-Christians?

These questions and many more are points of contention not only for different churches and different theologies, but also for different individual Christians. And I know it is an impossible task, but we must make an effort to dispel these contentions and think alike so that one may not be praising what is sinful, and another may not condemn what is righteous.

 

[Wolfeman]

I must go get my daughter a kitten or I would respond with much more depth and time.

Discussions between Protestants (and including Baptist who are not Protestants) is difficult at best because of the different interpretations we have over the same Bible. This is further complicated by different revisions and translations of the same Bible.

When you add the Apocrypha as well as Authorities like Tradition and the Pope into the mix it becomes almost impossible to have a coherent discussion. This is a great discussion (if it remains cordial) but is difficult considering the gulf between Catholics and Everyone else.

A better discussion might be the difference between the Body and the Church. Protestants tend to view them as the same. Most Independent Baptist put a difference between the two. From what I gather, Catholics do as well. If the Body and the Church are the same, it becomes difficult to justify unity. If there is a difference, it's pretty easy in the form of unity.

 

[Patriot]

BUT that does leave the question: what is the true authority Christians ought to stand on? And who has that authority?

In Christ alone. And the words of Christ as well as the descriptions and explanations of the prophets and Apostles are found in the Bible.

I'd say more, but I'm liable to get myself into trouble. . .

 

[ewoksrule]

yes, and therefore in the priesthood of all believers.

 

[GenghisKhan44]

Discussions between Protestants (and including Baptist who are not Protestants) is difficult at best because of the different interpretations we have over the same Bible. This is further complicated by different revisions and translations of the same Bible.

When you add the Apocrypha as well as Authorities like Tradition and the Pope into the mix it becomes almost impossible to have a coherent discussion. This is a great discussion (if it remains cordial) but is difficult considering the gulf between Catholics and Everyone else.

Alrighty, then. Let's stick to the Protestants, for now. All Protestants have common ground between each other. One book, one authority on which they interpret it.

A better discussion might be the difference between the Body and the Church. Protestants tend to view them as the same. Most Independent Baptist put a difference between the two. From what I gather, Catholics do as well. If the Body and the Church are the same, it becomes difficult to justify unity. If there is a difference, it's pretty easy in the form of unity.

This is a good question, no doubt.

My first question is: by what authority do the Independent Baptists make their distinction between the Body and the Church? My second is: by what authority do other churches say the opposite? My third: are there any other stances, and what is their authority for saying that?

If a church is going to make a declaration, that declaration must have a source. And that is all I am asking for, nothing less: the source of these declarations.

On the subject of authority:

In Christ alone. And the words of Christ as well as the descriptions and explanations of the prophets and Apostles are found in the Bible.

I'd say more, but I'm liable to get myself into trouble. . .

Alright. Do you believe anyone else's beliefs stand on this same authority? There are many others who claim the very same authority you do. And for the sake of argument at the moment, may we limit it to other Protestants? I would love to argue the Orthodox and the Catholic sides, but there is more commonality between Protestants, and... I would like to explore that.

yes, and therefore in the priesthood of all believers.

Ah... perhaps now we are getting somewhere. If I understand correctly - please do correct me if I don't - the priesthood of all believers, for Protestants, is the belief that all God's graces come directly from God to each individual believer, with neither person nor Church in between.

Does this also mean, if I understand correctly, that between each man and his Bible there is no filter in any form of Protestantism - Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, non-denominational, and so on - except God Almighty? Or am I incorrect?

 

[ewoksrule]

The Priesthood of All Believers

The Bible teaches that all believers have priesthood authority (1 Peter 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). Even in the Old Testament, the nation of Israel was to be a kingdom of priests (Ex. 19:5-6). However, Jesus is the unique High Priest (Heb. 7:23-8:13). Each believer has the authority to preach the Gospel, baptize, and govern the kingdom of God on this earth.

Taken from source

Who gives you the right to baptize?

The simple answer is God in His Word. In the New Testament, there is no specific command regarding who can and cannot baptize. Jesus commanded all of the disciples to go baptize (Mt. 28:18-20), but He never limited the baptizing to just the apostles. Since Christians are all priests (1 Peter 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10; 20:6), any one of them has the right to baptize. Christians have the authority to baptize based on God’s Word which is the inspired, authoritative source of revelation. If someone believes, he or she receives the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13) and becomes born again (John 1:13). Baptism is not necessary for salvation (Acts 10:43-48; 1 Cor. 1:17; Rom. 4:5; Eph. 2:8-9; etc.). No Church organization has the authority to decide who can and cannot receive the Holy Spirit. Anyone who believes receives the Holy Spirit by faith (Eph. 1:13) and has assurance of eternal life (1 John 5:13).


Who gives you the right to interpret Scripture?

The Bible allows for individuals to interpret Scripture. In Acts 17:11, the Bereans are commended since they "...received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." The Bereans investigated and studied the Scriptures to see if the Apostle's teachings were true. Furthermore, Jesus commanded the Pharisees and Jews, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me," (John 5:39). The Bible is not a secret manual that is only for the learned, but is for all people to read, study, and apply, using sound principles of interpretation (see "How to Interpret the Bible").

 

[Abba San]

And I know it is an impossible task, but we must make an effort to dispel these contentions and think alike so that one may not be praising what is sinful, and another may not condemn what is righteous.

Let me say, first, that I have appreciated the tone people have maintained thus far in this thread. Thanks for that.

Second, I agree that it is an impossible task...at least in this forum. These questions have been debated by men and women wiser, more godly and more theologically adept than any of us who drop in to jot a few lines. I don't think we are the ones who are going to resolve theological dilemmas that have existed for several millennium.

Third, I'm not sure that we "must make an effort to dispel these contentions and think alike." In fact, I'm pretty sure we need NOT. I can enjoy the on-line fellowship and in-game camaraderie with people who are not completely like-minded with me - without thinking you are "praising what is sinful," or "condemn what is righteous." It is thinking and comments like those that can take the tone of discussion in an unhelpful direction.

As a moderator of this forum - just a reminder - be cordial - and as much as possible try to have your responses reflect scripture not just your own opinion.

 

[RiverTigress]

If you can answer all these questions with a sound and confident affirmative, I have nothing further to say to you as an individual, save that you should go in peace to love and serve the Lord, and that there's no such thing as learning too much about the Lord.

But if there is any strong disagreement between two people, or between two churches, who firmly believe they can answer all the above questions with a "yes", something is wrong. It is not the words of Christ, who said He is the Way, Truth, and Life. Nor is it the words of Paul, who affirms there is but one Gospel. Therefore, who else can it be but one or both of these churches, or people? And how can the Body of Christ be divided against itself and contradictory, and yet still be One undivided, united Body?

I have no other answer to give on this than what I have already given, and yes for me it is that simple, when you're talking about Gospel message at least. Getting into things like how to please God and live your life I agree takes a lot of study and effort and discernment and growth, I just consider that under a different subject category than you are talking about here.

Just because I'm not in agreement with you though, does not mean there's any discord. Your beliefs and relationship with God are between you and Him and none of my concern to try to change, because if God wanted you to change, He'd be far more effective at making His case to you than I would. I'm not a Catholic and I don't agree with all the theology of the Catholic church as I understand it. However, I've probably given more money over my lifetime to Catholic churches than any other due to them being the only majorly active representative of God in some specific places, like American Indian Reservations for instance, and it's more important to me that people come to know God than that they come to know my particular interpretation of Him. But then I also believe that God is more powerful than man to not let errors of man come between Him and a genuinely willing heart. To my point of view, He went to a lot of trouble to get us saved to let the entire plan of salvation be thwarted by translational or publishing errors, and He certainly wasn't planning on us being able to keep ourselves 100% error-free until Jesus returns.

I believe in Christ there should be unity, but there is also intentional diversity as well, just as our natural bodies have some very different parts for differing purposes, and if any church is attempting to reach people in need with Christ then I consider them worthy of my prayers and support whether or not I agree with everything I would consider as non-Gospel doctrine.


Mark 9:37-40 "And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part."

1 Corinthians 12:3-7,12 "Wherefore I give you to understand that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administration, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal...For as the body is one and hath many members, and all being the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ."

 

[GenghisKhan44]

Who gives you the right to interpret Scripture?

The Bible allows for individuals to interpret Scripture. In Acts 17:11, the Bereans are commended since they "...received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." The Bereans investigated and studied the Scriptures to see if the Apostle's teachings were true. Furthermore, Jesus commanded the Pharisees and Jews, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me," (John 5:39). The Bible is not a secret manual that is only for the learned, but is for all people to read, study, and apply, using sound principles of interpretation (see "How to Interpret the Bible").

Agreed; but the Berean Jews also listened to Paul, and he gave them the interpretation that led them to accept the Gospel. The Thessalonian Jews in Acts also had the Scriptures, but they refused to listen to Paul and chased him out of Thessalonica.

Read in context, the authority the Thessalonians rested on was Scripture and their own interpretations of it, and rejected not only what had recently happened - the Resurrection - but also the Apostle Paul. The Bereans listened to Paul, and looking through Scripture, found that Paul was right.

To this day, we do not know what exactly Saint Paul said to the Bereans. So I ask you: if the unwritten words of Saint Paul were not enough to convince the Thessalonians, but were enough for the Bereans, who both read the same Scriptures, then was it Scripture, or Saint Paul's words, that brought the Bereans to the truth?

Were the Thessalonians and Bereans being led by Scripture and the Holy Ghost to different interpretations - one that cause Saint Paul to be chased out of Thessalonica, another that led to the acceptance of Paul's Gospel?

Or was Paul's authority as a teacher instrumental to the conversion of the Bereans?

The Priesthood of All Believers

*snip*

Taken from source

Who gives you the right to baptize?

*snip*

Not only is it our right but it is our duty to preach the Gospel; for we are commanded by Christ to preach the Gospel to all the ends of the Earth.

And any baptism done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is valid, Catholic or non-Catholic, by an ordained priest or an ordinary priest (a layman). Not every man in Heaven has been baptised on Earth with water. Some are baptised in their blood before they can be baptised with water. And some, never knowing the Gospel, may have sought baptism if they had known its saving power.

 

[GenghisKhan44]

Let me say, first, that I have appreciated the tone people have maintained thus far in this thread. Thanks for that.

Second, I agree that it is an impossible task...at least in this forum. These questions have been debated by men and women wiser, more godly and more theologically adept than any of us who drop in to jot a few lines. I don't think we are the ones who are going to resolve theological dilemmas that have existed for several millennium.

Sadly, you may have a point.

I still want to see how far we can get.

Third, I'm not sure that we "must make an effort to dispel these contentions and think alike." In fact, I'm pretty sure we need NOT. I can enjoy the on-line fellowship and in-game camaraderie with people who are not completely like-minded with me - without thinking you are "praising what is sinful," or "condemn what is righteous." It is thinking and comments like those that can take the tone of discussion in an unhelpful direction.

As a moderator of this forum - just a reminder - be cordial - and as much as possible try to have your responses reflect scripture not just your own opinion.

The friendship and camaraderie is nice. And I enjoy collaborating with Bascom and the rest on Minecraft. But while we are gamers, we are also Christians. Authority is an important topic. And while this thread may not solve the dilemma of who or what authority is correct for everyone in the entire world, I at least hope to get people thinking about it. Because if we stand on the wrong authority when interpreting Scripture, we risk rebelling against God and His word, just as the Pharisees, the Saducees, and the Thessalonian Jews did.

Just because I'm not in agreement with you though, does not mean there's any discord. Your beliefs and relationship with God are between you and Him and none of my concern to try to change, because if God wanted you to change, He'd be far more effective at making His case to you than I would.

You could be His instrument, though. You could be such a tool... (No offense, just some word play.)

I'm not a Catholic and I don't agree with all the theology of the Catholic church as I understand it.

I wonder if the discussion would have been different if I'd introduced myself as Greek Orthodox, or Episcopalian. Or some other type of Christian. Anyway,

t's more important to me that people come to know God than that they come to know my particular interpretation of Him. But then I also believe that God is more powerful than man to not let errors of man come between Him and a genuinely willing heart. To my point of view, He went to a lot of trouble to get us saved to let the entire plan of salvation be thwarted by translational or publishing errors, and He certainly wasn't planning on us being able to keep ourselves 100% error-free until Jesus returns.

Individually, how could any of us be free of errors? We're all sinful men.

But is not God more powerful than error? Not only is He capable of transcending man in his sin and his error. He is capable of transcending error itself. If God is Truth itself, then why would He allow us to believe what is false if we seek and know Him? Why wouldn't He expect us to know the Truth, now and forever? He expected nothing less of the Jews.

And how are we to keep Christ's commandments, as Christ says we ought (John 15:10, 14), when we do not know them? There must be a way to know them, objectively, infallibly, and without doubt. Otherwise, how can we keep His commands? Not by our own power, certainly.

I believe in Christ there should be unity, but there is also intentional diversity as well, just as our natural bodies have some very different parts for differing purposes, and if any church is attempting to reach people in need with Christ then I consider them worthy of my prayers and support whether or not I agree with everything I would consider as non-Gospel doctrine.

I agree that we should support our brothers and sisters in Christ, and we should pray for them. That is why I am praying for unity. True, the Body of Christ is made of many, different parts, just as men's bodies are. But the toe does not poison the foot. Nor does the eye try to free itself from its socket. Or the arm twist itself free from the shoulder. The Body works together and is in agreement with itself, even though it is diversely built and capable of diverse functions.

The Body of Christ is also not tied together with strings; or else it is just a collection of body parts whose only commonality is the string under which they are collected. No; each part is snugly attached to where it belongs, so that while its freedom of movement is partially restricted because it is no longer an individual arm or leg, it is far more useful and far more purposeful in communion with its other members. So is the Body of Christ when we collaborate, not only under the name of Christ, but also under the commandments and the end of Christ.

And the end of Christ is the sanctification - the making holy - of every man, not merely his salvation.

 

[RiverTigress]

I wonder if the discussion would have been different if I'd introduced myself as Greek Orthodox, or Episcopalian. Or some other type of Christian.

For me the pertinent fact there is not that you are Catholic, but that as a Catholic, and by your own statement within this thread, your choice of scriptural authority differs from mine (I am a KJV-adherent myself, but I have no doctrinal issue that others should be, only a testimony that that's what God makes most accessible and understandable to me), so I am not as free to use my own scriptural understandings in responses to you as I would be able to with other Christians with a similar mindset as mine. That being said, being KJV, I run into equal issues with non-Catholics questioning my scriptural authority too, whether I'm taking issue with them or not, so it's not an issue of judgement of you being different from me, just a recognition that you have a different foundation than mine to base things on.

I don't mean to imply any judgement or evaluation of you by referring to your Catholicism, only respecting that I know that as one you have a different basis to judge things on that would make it unconstructive for me to go into more sophisticated arguments about my beliefs when I have a different foundational basis for them, so in light of the difference between our foundations, I can only point to the power of God Himself that we both equally share and have part in to have any hope of productive discussion here. It's not meant to cause any offense at all that I am being simplistic about things here, I am just being respectful of the fact that any more detailed argument I might have will likely be invalid to your perspective.

But also if it helps any for you to understand my perspective, since you are new here and don't know me yet, I am not a traditional Christian of any denomination really. I am an impoverished farmgirl with no church background and a mental disability who just got saved a few years ago and still haven't found a corporal church to call home yet, so admittedly there is a possibility that God might allow me more simplicity than others who are capable of more, but I can only speak according to my own experience and understanding and not try to guess how things are for others.