Jump to content

Menu

Catholicism, Christianity, Denominations?


Recommended Posts

I think that most Episcopalians, and I am one, do not approve of homosexuality because it is more modern to do so. It's because we feel Jesus is ok with love in that form, and doesn't want us to judge it. I do NOT want to debate homosexuality here, or anywhere really, but wanted to say that the church's opinion has nothing to do with it being modern or trendy.

If you don't mind me asking: What would an Episcopalian Pastor base this on since it's not in the Bible? Not trying to debate at all-I just like to hear from all sides. I feel it allows ppl to form a well balanced opinion.

Edited by OregonNative
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 530
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No doubt that contributed to sexual issues being "twisted" in young boys' minds, as you say, but there will always be pedophiles, both in and outside the church, regardless of denomination or how the seminaries are set up, sadly.

Yes, like the man that published an e-book guide on how to be a good Pedophile and sold it on Amazon! Boy that helps the world right!? Fortunately, he was arrested and Amazon quit selling the book. But I digress.............:tongue_smilie:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The early church had all the books of the modern day Bible, and more. They passed them around, copied them, and read them out loud in church services. When the canon was debated and formed, one of the main criteria was that the chosen books were in wide or universal use already, as Scripture, in churches. There was a meeting of many church leaders, who all reported on what was being used in their regions, and there was an amazing consensus.

 

As a Lutheran, I regard my church as a continuation of the church catholic (universal, small c). Sola Scriptura was documented by Lutherans originally, and says that where councils and late work contradicts the Bible, the Bible wins. However, we have tremendous respect for the early councils of the church, and our pastors study them extensively. We also respect responsible Biblical scholarship, and our pastors all must learn Greek and Hebrew. Many also learn Latin, and a sizable minority in our LCMS also know German quite well. The Lutheran Reformation actually grew out of a widespread consensus among Renaissance and moral RC leaders that the Western church needed to be reformed. Luther never intended or envisioned setting up a separate church body, but simply helping to return the RC church to its former root beliefs and practices, and clearing out some abuses. This followed naturally from the Renaissance-era recovery of classical texts and classical languages. In fact, where Luther tended to disagree regarding justification grew out of his study of the Greek text of the New Testament, which was more original than the Latin Vulgate text in widespread use in the RC church at the time.

 

I privately believe that had Luther had more contact with the EO church he might very well have moved in that direction.

 

From my studies of history it is clear to me that the EO church has far less accretion of additional extraneous material than the RC church does, and as such I could imagine joining that church although it is impossible to imagine joining the RC one. However, the balance of the LCMS church at its best is my conviction of the truth--the historic Faith, the Real Presence, the focus on God and not saints, the belief in the communion of saints nonetheless, infant baptism, the Sola's, the focus on grace, the doctrine of adiophora, the view of Scripture--these are all so well balanced and clearly taught that I could not be anything else with conviction.

Well put and thought provoking! Thanks:001_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One is more traditional/conservative than the other. Yes, I understand this part. It just seems they are SO different and at completely different ends of the spectrum. I guess it bothers me personally that a church could be so liberal and still call itself Lutheran.

 

Yeah that bothers me as well and I am a conservative LCMS Lutheran. But you could say the same thing about how can you call 2 churches at opposite ends of the spectrum, Christian Churches?

 

As a side note a lot of the LCMS churches I have been in I would not consider conservative, but they aren't as liberal as the ELCA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a side note a lot of the LCMS churches I have been in I would not consider conservative

How so?

I was raised LCMS (baptized, confirmed, married all in the same church). I remember when our pastor started a contemporary service. (This is my only personal experience with something being considered liberal w/in my church). The older members nearly had heart attacks! Contemporary consisted of a flute, piano keyboard and acoustic guitar with singers. We sang hymns and very traditional Christian songs. It was about as Contemporary as Mr. Rogers:tongue_smilie:The "lifers" considered the change to be anything but conservative. I have no idea what other Lutheran churches are like-even today. The last time I went to my church was in 2002.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Hebrew Scripture was also Oral Tradition before it was written. And when Jesus lived it was likely that all his teaching came directly from the Oral Tradition. He did not read off a Kindle. :D The Jews set down a cannon of books after Christ's death more or less to make a distinction from the newly forming Christians - leaving out some books that would have been used by Jesus. This Jewish Cannon is the cannon that the reformers used as well. Am I getting that right folks? Correct me if I am wrong. (Again, over my head! Sinking! Help! Blurb Blurb Blurb...)

 

 

I'm just coming into the conversation... skipped towards the end, but I'm hoping to catch up.

 

At any rate, in my theological education we were taught that the Jewish canon was formed after the Christian (eventually Catholic) canon. The Christians at the time used the Jewish books that were in use by the Jews in Diaspora and therefore nearby the Christians who were mostly not in Jerusalem. The Jews in Jerusalem formed their own canon which is different than the one used in Diaspora. Then when Luther was forming the canon that protestants use, he went with the Jewish canon.

 

:)

Off to read more...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been reading a great deal lately on this topic, and came across this statement. I was curious as to whether or not it was theologically correct?

 

"The Eastern Orthodox Church views salvation as a process by which the Christian becomes more and more like God through a combination of faith and love, while the LCMS believes that a person is saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ. Justification is a declaration of God's grace, not a "process" involving a person's sanctification."

 

I was under the impression that the Orthodox believed that salvation was through grace, but that an individual should be constantly striving for a closer relationship with God.

 

Thanks,

Krista

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been reading a great deal lately on this topic, and came across this statement. I was curious as to whether or not it was theologically correct?

 

"The Eastern Orthodox Church views salvation as a process by which the Christian becomes more and more like God through a combination of faith and love, while the LCMS believes that a person is saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ. Justification is a declaration of God's grace, not a "process" involving a person's sanctification."

 

I was under the impression that the Orthodox believed that salvation was through grace, but that an individual should be constantly striving for a closer relationship with God.

 

Thanks,

Krista

 

Hi Krista, I'll make an attempt at an answer, but invite other Orthodox to correct me if I'm wrong. I would say the Orthodox view of salvation is that it's by grace, through faith, and that it's a process. Sort of a combination of all the options presented ... what it isn't is a one-time prayer and "once saved always saved" from there on out. There's an article that I particularly like which addresses these things -- the Orthodox view of salvation, the early church's view of sin (ie, original vs. ancestral), etc. -- but it's bookmarked on my other computer. If you'd like me to post it from there, let me know.

Edited by milovanĂƒÂ½
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How so?

I was raised LCMS (baptized, confirmed, married all in the same church). I remember when our pastor started a contemporary service. (This is my only personal experience with something being considered liberal w/in my church). The older members nearly had heart attacks! Contemporary consisted of a flute, piano keyboard and acoustic guitar with singers. We sang hymns and very traditional Christian songs. It was about as Contemporary as Mr. Rogers:tongue_smilie:The "lifers" considered the change to be anything but conservative. I have no idea what other Lutheran churches are like-even today. The last time I went to my church was in 2002.

 

Sermons lacking a combination of law and gospel

Money focused rather than God focused

Selling of goods within the church (tons of fundraising)

Contemporary services that completely do away any liturgy. When done properly liturgy contains public confessions of sins and confessions of faith

Contemporary services that only do a gospel reading instead of 4 scriptural readings (OT, Gospel & Epistle and Psalms, the Lord's prayer)

Contemporary services doing away with traditional Lutheran music. (Praise music that has little real meaning is often used instead. I am not against all praise music, I am against a lack of meaning in the music.)

 

I don't have a problem with changes, I have a problem when they take any real meaning out of the service or are centered on things other than Christ.

Edited by Mama Geek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was raised Mennonite in Lancaster County, PA and converted to Catholicism in my late 20's. I read a lot of books by Scott Hahn, Patrick Madrid, and Tim Staples. It was when I realized that Jesus founded the Catholic Church, that I knew it was where I wanted to be. As a child & young adult, I would often question, to myself, how do I know the church I'm attending is "correct"? There were lots of churches in the area & I knew they were all teaching something a little different. I have so much peace about my faith since becoming Catholic. I wish you the best with your journey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what it isn't is a one-time prayer

This has always bothered me. When we moved to Northern CA years ago, we were church shopping. We attended a Baptist church and at the end of each service they invited ppl to meet with someone so they could read a passage from the Bible, pray and then be saved. Because I had not done this as a Lutheran, they church told me I was NOT saved! I cried for days and finally called my pastor back home-he clarified that I was indeed saved and my salvation had nothing to do with reading a Bible passage and then praying with a member of this church! I didn't want to have anything to do with this particular church after that and they stalked us like crazy:001_huh:

 

I would love the link that you have bookmarked at home:)

Edited by OregonNative
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Krista, I'll make an attempt at an answer, but invite other Orthodox to correct me if I'm wrong. I would say the Orthodox view of salvation is that it's by grace, through faith, and that it's a process. Sort of a combination of all the options presented ... what it isn't is a one-time prayer and "once saved always saved" from there on out. There's an article that I particularly like which addresses these things -- the Orthodox view of salvation, the early church's view of sin (ie, original vs. ancestral), etc. -- but it's bookmarked on my other computer. If you'd like me to post it from there, let me know.

 

Thank you for the clarification. I would love to have the link to the article, if it is not too much trouble! I have a couple of other questions, if you do not mind. If salvation is a process, at what point is a person deemed to be saved? Can someone lose their salvation by not continuing in the process? Do those questions even make sense?

 

Krista

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the clarification. I would love to have the link to the article, if it is not too much trouble! I have a couple of other questions, if you do not mind. If salvation is a process, at what point is a person deemed to be saved? Can someone lose their salvation by not continuing in the process? Do those questions even make sense?

 

Krista

 

:bigear:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just coming into the conversation... skipped towards the end, but I'm hoping to catch up.

 

At any rate, in my theological education we were taught that the Jewish canon was formed after the Christian (eventually Catholic) canon. The Christians at the time used the Jewish books that were in use by the Jews in Diaspora and therefore nearby the Christians who were mostly not in Jerusalem. The Jews in Jerusalem formed their own canon which is different than the one used in Diaspora. Then when Luther was forming the canon that protestants use, he went with the Jewish canon.

 

:)

Off to read more...

 

Thank you! That is what I thought too. I recall another interesting tidbit, but maybe you know more. One of the ways the Jews decided what to include and what to leave out was that they chose only texts for which there was a Hebrew original copy - not ones that were only available in Greek. That meant that the Christian cannon had some that the Jewish cannon did not (and why the Protestant Bible doesn't have them as well). BUT later on some of those books were found in their original Hebrew. Wish I could remember more specifics. We went over this in our RCIA class, which was taught by someone who went much deeper into things than they usually do for RCIA. It was a huge blessing to me.

 

I am a bad student with too much public school under my belt. I understood it at the time and processed it well, but I have forgotten much. In other words, I learned it for the test. :tongue_smilie:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I privately believe that had Luther had more contact with the EO church he might very well have moved in that direction.

 

 

I found this article tonight. Have you read any of this information before? It was something we wondered about too, as we were converting. If, as the article says, the Lutherans wanted the Orthodox Church to come into alignment with Lutheranism (rather than the other way around), I can see where the talks might not be fruitful. I, too, wish something different might have happened in regard to Luther and the Orthodox Church at that point. I think some of it was probably that it seemed too foreign and ethnic? Not sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah that bothers me as well and I am a conservative LCMS Lutheran. But you could say the same thing about how can you call 2 churches at opposite ends of the spectrum, Christian Churches?

 

 

I usually figure that God is so big and unknowable that it only makes sense that we'd all have different relationships with Him. We all have different needs, and the different churches fill the different needs, but all with the goal of growing closer to God & Jesus.

 

I tend to run both liberal and conservative depending on the topic. Sometimes some folks run so liberal that I wonder if they're still Christian (as in following Christ as opposed to some other deity), and at the same time some folks run so conservative that I wonder if they're still Christian (as in showing the love and forgiveness exemplified by Jesus, as opposed to following a more contemporary preacher). At times like that I try to remember how much I'll never know about God, and pray for everyone. That's one of the things I love about being Catholic -- our theology tells us that every single service (Mass) we all pray with and for each other, all across the globe, regardless of where we fall on the spectrum. We are celebrating one sacrifice, all together, with all the angels and saints.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been reading a great deal lately on this topic, and came across this statement. I was curious as to whether or not it was theologically correct?

 

"The Eastern Orthodox Church views salvation as a process by which the Christian becomes more and more like God through a combination of faith and love, while the LCMS believes that a person is saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ. Justification is a declaration of God's grace, not a "process" involving a person's sanctification."

 

I was under the impression that the Orthodox believed that salvation was through grace, but that an individual should be constantly striving for a closer relationship with God.

 

Thanks,

Krista

 

Still trying to catch up... but for this topic one helpful word to Google is "divinization", or similarly, "theosis". They're the same thing (I think). Roman Catholics have it as a part of their deeper (aka less well known) theology.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the clarification. I would love to have the link to the article, if it is not too much trouble! I have a couple of other questions, if you do not mind. If salvation is a process, at what point is a person deemed to be saved? Can someone lose their salvation by not continuing in the process? Do those questions even make sense?

 

Krista

 

 

I'm not Orthodox, but from my reading it's not a moment of being saved. Salvation is the goal, but it's really about growing in relationship with God. St. Athenasius said that "the Son of God became man so that we might become God", referencing 2 Peter 1:4 "Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature." While, for many of us, there comes a time when we make a choice to intentionally grow in relationship with God, that's not where we stop. Just because I've given my life to Jesus doesn't mean that I'm anywhere near being like Him. Even after I've begun following Jesus, there is a lot of work that I need to do to become a better person, to grow in likeness to God.

 

"Deification" and "divine filiation" are additional search terms, if you're interested...

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not Orthodox, but from my reading it's not a moment of being saved. Salvation is the goal, but it's really about growing in relationship with God. St. Athenasius said that "the Son of God became man so that we might become God", referencing 2 Peter 1:4 "Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature." While, for many of us, there comes a time when we make a choice to intentionally grow in relationship with God, that's not where we stop. Just because I've given my life to Jesus doesn't mean that I'm anywhere near being like Him. Even after I've begun following Jesus, there is a lot of work that I need to do to become a better person, to grow in likeness to God.

 

"Deification" and "divine filiation" are additional search terms, if you're interested...

 

:)

 

Thank you - it looks like I have more reading to do!

 

Krista

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amy, do you believe that darkness can show itself as light? I almost converted to a faith that looking back terrifies me! I prayed and was told God would show me the truth about this faith if I sought him. I did seek and felt that he was telling me this faith was the truth. When my DH refused to let me convert (thank God), I was devastated and cried for days. I felt like my heart had been ripped out and I would never be able to practice the true faith.

 

I have not prayed about this new journey. Part of me is afraid I will be led astray-by what or whom I don't know.

 

I still don't understand why I was so eager to convert to something that I realize now is completely off the mark and is not Christian.

 

I would say that there's a reason that we live in community :). I think darkness is able to imitate light, but it won't fool everyone, so we rely on those who love us to help us see our path. Which is one of the reasons it can be so hard to convert away from our family's traditions.

 

When I was converting to Catholicism I talked to a lot of different people about it, including my pastor (at my previous church) and my mom, in addition to others. Most people had what I came to consider "the usual" objections (the Inquisition was the top of the list :001_huh:). My mom and my pastor, when I asked them (individually) why I shouldn't become Catholic, both of them said, quite solemnly, "Mary." I finally decided (after much prayer), that Jesus' mother was not really a reason to ignore God's call.

 

I think one thing that helped me in my journey was taking my time. It took me about 2 years of prayer, searching, questioning, reading, and everything I could think of in order to decide to become Catholic. I actually spent a chunk of that time being decided that I wouldn't become Catholic (because of Mary and the Inquisition :tongue_smilie:), but in the end God was abundantly clear that He wanted me to be Catholic.

 

Good luck. The journey can be hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread has been very interesting! It's been keeping me very busy. (ok, it has basically taken over my whole day:D) Can anyone recommend a book that compares and contrasts the many 'flavors' of Christianity? It gets a bit confusing! TIA.

 

There was a link that was posted somewhere pages back -- sorry I don't have the specifics but it was pretty clearly named/mentioned. I didn't fully agree with how it was set up (it called the early church groups denominations, which seemed odd), but it spoke about each one and the different things they ascribed to. Did you see that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll have to look through again. I'm sure I missed a few posts, at least. So many rabbit trails to follow; I'm giving google quite the workout. Thanks!

 

 

 

There was a link that was posted somewhere pages back -- sorry I don't have the specifics but it was pretty clearly named/mentioned. I didn't fully agree with how it was set up (it called the early church groups denominations, which seemed odd), but it spoke about each one and the different things they ascribed to. Did you see that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the clarification. I would love to have the link to the article, if it is not too much trouble! I have a couple of other questions, if you do not mind. If salvation is a process, at what point is a person deemed to be saved? Can someone lose their salvation by not continuing in the process? Do those questions even make sense?

 

Krista

 

Salvation is not a term in Catholicism like it is in denominations other than Catholicism: there is no "I'm SAVED" kind of thing. There is baptism into the Church; a ritual of initiation. It is the fulfillment (the public acknowledgement) of something that already exists: that the person has been a child of God since they were conceived in the womb. It is a promise, if you will, by the parents (if it is a baby), or by the person being baptized, that they will teach the faith (learn the faith), live the faith, adhere to its tenants. Personally, I have always found it sad that some people take infant baptism so flippantly. Yes, they believe they are protecting their child from original sin, but many seem to miss the promise, the agreement they have entered into with God.

 

Process proceeds from the above. It isn't a "process" in the sense that you are speaking. It is a process in the sense that one is always learning one's faith, always growing - that the relationship between a person and God is always coming into a "fullness" (for lack of better terminology). And, like I wrote above, this is a promise made at baptism. It should be made seriously. I don't know about the EO, but in the RCC, this promise is "confirmed" at the sacrament of confirmation, when a person is "at the age of reason" (puberty, kind of ironically - but it is an old custom - and it used to be much younger; under the current RCC pope, it is going back to the younger age). When people are baptized as adults, they are usually confirmed at the same time.

 

You can't "lose" your salvation in Catholicism (EO or RCC). Salvation of mankind is the entire reason Christ died on the cross.

 

Grace is free. Once you say "yes", it's there; he doesn't give up on you.

 

 

a

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't mind me asking: What would an Episcopalian Pastor base this on since it's not in the Bible? Not trying to debate at all-I just like to hear from all sides. I feel it allows ppl to form a well balanced opinion.

 

I'm not an Episcopalian Pastor, just a Catholic laywoman with some theological education, and I'm totally likely to botch this (I'm sorry!) but I'm going to try...

 

To look at the debate from the other side, one starting place is in how we're looking at Scripture. As one of my theology professors said (with a deep Texan accent) "The Bible did not fall from Heaven in a Glad Bag". The Bible is the Word of God, but God didn't drop it in our laps perfectly translated and punctuated. It came through people: beautiful, wonderful, in-the-image-of-God but fallen people. Even Moses wasn't perfect, and Isaiah was clear that he wasn't either. Jesus was perfect, but that doesn't mean that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or Paul were perfect. And if you think about trying to put something as ineffable as God (or even just prayer!) into words, it's clear that our human words can and do fall short. And on top of that, we're usually working with translations! For an earlier post I looked at 3 different translations for the same passage, all saying the same thing but in slightly different ways. Depending on who the translator/translating committee is, a scriptural passage can be totally different. As a Christian, my Bible is the Word of God, and it is essential in my faith life, but I don't believe that God expected me to take every word literally. I do believe that God expects me to take it seriously, to pray over it, with it, and through it, to study it over and over again so that He can speak to me through it. But that's different than taking it literally.

 

You can probably already see how there's a difference of interpretation when it comes to this issue.

 

From there, we can move to specific Bible passages. There are lots of sites addressing this online... take a look here for OT passages, and this page is interesting for NT passages.

 

This article also speaks to the more liberal perspective, and it's a whole lot more eloquent than I am.

 

As a straight married woman, I appreciate the gay and lesbian people in my life. Most particularly I feel like I owe a lot to my husband's gay uncle and his partner of 30+ years... of all his uncles, aunts, and even parents (all of whom are straight), they were the only ones to stay in a stable, committed relationship. My husband knows what a marriage looks like thanks to them, and my marriage is better because of it. In terms of church life, I don't feel that it's my job to worry about other peoples' personal (adult consensual) relationships, and it's really not my job to mediate their relationship with God. I am grateful to anyone who is following God's call into ministry, and I know that God's call to service doesn't always include a call to heterosexuality (or celibacy, or the gift of being male, etc).

 

I'm also not really trying to debate, but trying to provide at least a little glimpse into the other side of the argument. Sometimes I feel like communities like this forum are far too rare in our society. This forum is amazing because it represents the part of the spectrum where the spectrum curls around and meets the other side -- here in homeschooling is where the liberals and conservatives can meet, and in many ways I feel like it represents the best hopes that I have for the U.S.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we moved to Northern CA years ago, we were church shopping. We attended a Baptist church and at the end of each service they invited ppl to meet with someone so they could read a passage from the Bible, pray and then be saved. Because I had not done this as a Lutheran, they church told me I was NOT saved! I cried for days and finally called my pastor back home-he clarified that I was indeed saved and my salvation had nothing to do with reading a Bible passage and then praying with a member of this church! I didn't want to have anything to do with this particular church after that and they stalked us like crazy:001_huh:

 

Many Baptist churches place a high value on reaching out to visitors to the church, either by calling, sending cards or dropping by. (Other Protestant denominations do this, as well.) I would imagine it could feel intrusive to someone who was just trying out the church once.:001_smile:

 

Also, many Baptist churches will do an "alter call" in which they invite people to come down to the front if they have an interest in speaking with someone and praying a prayer of salvation, in accordance with the Biblical principle of believing in your heart and confessing with your mouth that Jesus is Lord. (I don't have the reference for that - sorry.)

 

(I have not been a member of a Baptist church for a very long time, but I grew up in a large, Southern Baptist church so my information is based on that experience.)

 

Accordance to what I was taught in the Protestant church, salvation is the process (could be instant or take some time) of recognizing yourself as a person who has sinned and is in need of grace and allowing Christ/the Holy Spirit to guide your life. Sanctification would be the process (life long) of becoming more like Christ. Again, this is based on a strong, conservative Protestant background. A quick google produced this explanation of sanctification.

 

http://www.gotquestions.org/sanctification.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been reading a great deal lately on this topic, and came across this statement. I was curious as to whether or not it was theologically correct?

 

"The Eastern Orthodox Church views salvation as a process by which the Christian becomes more and more like God through a combination of faith and love, while the LCMS believes that a person is saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ. Justification is a declaration of God's grace, not a "process" involving a person's sanctification."

 

I was under the impression that the Orthodox believed that salvation was through grace, but that an individual should be constantly striving for a closer relationship with God.

 

Thanks,

Krista

 

I picked up a book yesterday called Easter Orthodoxy through Western Eyes, and all I can say is, "Wow!"

 

The above issue came up in the intro, here's a quote, "The spirituality of the West is largely a backward looking spirituality: we motivate ourselves for the Christian life by remembering what God has already done in saving us. In contrast, Orthodox see the journey not so much stemming from something that has already happened, but as moving toward God.... Orthodox spirituality is largely forward-looking: anticipation more than memory provides the motivation."

 

Anyway, I thought it was very interesting ;).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To look at the debate from the other side, one starting place is in how we're looking at Scripture. As one of my theology professors said (with a deep Texan accent) "The Bible did not fall from Heaven in a Glad Bag". The Bible is the Word of God, but God didn't drop it in our laps perfectly translated and punctuated. It came through people: beautiful, wonderful, in-the-image-of-God but fallen people. Even Moses wasn't perfect, and Isaiah was clear that he wasn't either. Jesus was perfect, but that doesn't mean that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or Paul were perfect. And if you think about trying to put something as ineffable as God (or even just prayer!) into words, it's clear that our human words can and do fall short.

:)

 

This is where I struggle because I personally would think that God protected the inspired writings of the books even tho man is fallen. That the books say what they say because they are supposed to. If the Bible isn't supposed to be taken literally-who then decides how it is to be taken? This seems like a slippery slope. I have a really hard time reconciling this for myself.

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where I struggle because I personally would think that God protected the inspired writings of the books even tho man is fallen. That the books say what they say because they are supposed to. If the Bible isn't supposed to be taken literally-who then decides how it is to be taken? This seems like a slippery slope. I have a really hard time reconciling this for myself.

Thoughts?

 

I think the problem with that argument...is that you can turn it on it's head and substitute "church" for "writings" or "scripture," and have the rc/eo conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where I struggle because I personally would think that God protected the inspired writings of the books even tho man is fallen. That the books say what they say because they are supposed to. If the Bible isn't supposed to be taken literally-who then decides how it is to be taken? This seems like a slippery slope. I have a really hard time reconciling this for myself.

Thoughts?

Now,this is where Catholics get that the Church interprets the Bible for the lowly masses that can't read for themselves. Mainly what that means is where the Bible says contradicting things we need to look to more than just the Bible. If verse 1 says something opposite of verse 2 we should look to Tradition, the catechism, the writings of the Doctors of the Church to see if verse 1 or verse 2 is more right. That way everyone is on the same page.

 

How many times have you heard of a Protestant church splintering because Person X believed verse 1 was correct and Person Z believed verse 2 was correct? The Church interpreting these kinds of inconsistencies is one of the things that has kept the Church together for 2000+ years.

 

And Catholics believe the Bible was written using many types of human language such as prose, parable and poetry. The writers also use simile, hyperbole, and other figures of speech. This helps us understand what the Bible is saying.

 

Hope that helps some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where I struggle because I personally would think that God protected the inspired writings of the books even tho man is fallen. That the books say what they say because they are supposed to. If the Bible isn't supposed to be taken literally-who then decides how it is to be taken? This seems like a slippery slope. I have a really hard time reconciling this for myself.

Thoughts?

 

I think there are a few issues here. One is that you are taking the Bible as a "book." It wasn't. Each individual book was written by someone for a specific reason within the early church and then distributed outside its original readership when other people were interested in and enlightened by what that book said. But our concept as the Bible being what you have in your hand today would have been foreign to them. When we look to it as the sole authority, we are misusing it and asking it to be something that it was never intended to be.

 

The OT was a liturgical book to be read to the people in the Temple. And discussed in the Temple. You can't separate it from that without taking it out of context. Any time the NT refers to scripture, it is referring 1. to the OT only (because there was no NT and 2. to the scriptures being used in the same liturgical context. The Bible was not written as a devotional document but as a liturgical one. When you separate it from its use, you start to stray from its intent.

 

The writers of the NT scriptures were also writing without the context of the whole -- meaning there was no NT, they likely never read the rest of the NT, and at the time they wrote it, they likely had no concept that they WERE producing new scripture.

 

When the catholic/orthodox, pre-split church decided on which "books" to put into the NT, they took the writings that were in circulation and decided from them which ones were doctrinally correct AND appropriate for use in the liturgy. They were not compiling a "book" for you to take home, meditate upon and come to your own conclusions about. They had no way of anticipating that it would ever be used for that, since many people were illiterate and books were so expensive that most literate people only owned a few anyhow. The NT was compiled as what was officially approved to be read aloud at church services and interpreted by the Bishops of the church there.

 

As far as the protection of the Holy Spirit goes, that was never promised to individual believers. The writings are inspired and protected, but interpretation of them by individual believers is NOT. Most of the time, the issues we disagree over are not about the text itself, but the interpretation of that text.

 

When we read the Bible now as individuals, we struggle to read it in the context it was written because we are modern people with our own baggage to bring to the table. We can't help it. But coming to an ancient, liturgical document with the idea that it is every man for himself, and that we are all meant to read, interpret and understand it correctly is what has led to the massive splintering of Christianity where every man is his own judge and his own church.

Edited by Asenik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that there's a reason that we live in community :). I think darkness is able to imitate light, but it won't fool everyone, so we rely on those who love us to help us see our path. Which is one of the reasons it can be so hard to convert away from our family's traditions.

 

Thank you so much for sharing part of your journey! I really love what you say above. I am so thankful that my DH was willing to step in and call on friends during the time I was wanting to convert. He was literally terrified!

It's the only time he has told me in 11 years that I was absolutley not allowed to do something.

 

At the same time, I worry about what I find, when I do find where God is calling me. Let's hypothetically say it was RCC. I can say right now, that he would be strongly opposed and might even think I was being led astray once again. His biggest issues would be: praying to the saints, praying to Mary, the Assumption, Immaculate Conception, Confessing to man, removal of salvation by mortal sin, not Sola Scriptura and purgatory. I also struggle with reconciling these things, but think I would be more open to learning about them to see if I could actually buy into them or if the information presented to validate them was enough for me. HOWEVER, this got me into trouble before and so I worry. Will I once again find something I "think" God is calling me to and emotion or impressionability will win over? Will I then buy blindly into the beliefs and practices? If I talk to a RCC Priest-he will obviously support RCC. If I talk to a Lutheran Pastor-he will inform me about dents in the RCC's Armour. And so on and so on. Everywhere I turn I get biased opinion (not that it's a bad thing) which makes it all the more hard for me to make an educated choice.

:willy_nilly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally catching up on this thread. May I just say how wonderful it is that we've 29 pages of varying viewpoints and divergent information and not one deleted post. It may well be a first for this type of thread!

 

I loved what someone said about the ends of the spectrum curving back and meeting in a homeschool setting. Would that everyone (regardless of whether or not homeschooling is involved) could meet, discuss, agree/disagree, and debate on any topic/issue without rancour and with mutual respect.

 

Mamaduck, thanks for the info re: EO beliefs about Real Presence. I didn't know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I picked up a book yesterday called Easter Orthodoxy through Western Eyes, and all I can say is, "Wow!"

 

The above issue came up in the intro, here's a quote, "The spirituality of the West is largely a backward looking spirituality: we motivate ourselves for the Christian life by remembering what God has already done in saving us. In contrast, Orthodox see the journey not so much stemming from something that has already happened, but as moving toward God.... Orthodox spirituality is largely forward-looking: anticipation more than memory provides the motivation."

 

Anyway, I thought it was very interesting ;).

 

That is a very interesting quote. One of my very favorite authors, John Piper talks about something similar in his book Future Grace...about how the church (Protestant) teaches that we should live rightly out of thankfulness for what Christ did for us in the PAST. While he says this is a good thought the POWER for actually living rightly is FAITH in what God will do in the FUTURE, both near and far. And he's a Baptist with Calvinist leanings. :001_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we read the Bible now as individuals, we struggle to read it in the context it was written because we are modern people with our own baggage to bring to the table. We can't help it. But coming to an ancient, liturgical document with the idea that it is every man for himself, and that we are all meant to read, interpret and understand it correctly is what has led to the massive splintering of Christianity where every man is his own judge and his own church.

:iagree:

Great post (all of it). I particularly like this summary. Very well put.

 

Thank you so much for sharing part of your journey! I really love what you say above. I am so thankful that my DH was willing to step in and call on friends during the time I was wanting to convert. He was literally terrified!

It's the only time he has told me in 11 years that I was absolutley not allowed to do something.

 

At the same time, I worry about what I find, when I do find where God is calling me. Let's hypothetically say it was RCC. I can say right now, that he would be strongly opposed and might even think I was being led astray once again. His biggest issues would be: praying to the saints, praying to Mary, the Assumption, Immaculate Conception, Confessing to man, removal of salvation by mortal sin, not Sola Scriptura and purgatory. I also struggle with reconciling these things, but think I would be more open to learning about them to see if I could actually buy into them or if the information presented to validate them was enough for me. HOWEVER, this got me into trouble before and so I worry. Will I once again find something I "think" God is calling me to and emotion or impressionability will win over? Will I then buy blindly into the beliefs and practices? If I talk to a RCC Priest-he will obviously support RCC. If I talk to a Lutheran Pastor-he will inform me about dents in the RCC's Armour. And so on and so on. Everywhere I turn I get biased opinion (not that it's a bad thing) which makes it all the more hard for me to make an educated choice.

:willy_nilly:

 

I wanted to join the RCC ten years before it actually happened. Ten long years. There is no rush. This thread has given you lots of material to read and think about. The Scott Hahn books are a great start for learning about the things that you list above. Take your time and do your own research before you take it out to people whose opinion you already know quite well. Give your husband and everyone else time. People adjust, but they need time and space. And they do need to feel and believe you are not rushing into anything without thinking. That is fair enough of them to ask. Whatever you do, it should not come about because of fear or pressure. I think you will not find those methods to be the way of the ancient Churches (They learned that the long, hard way).

 

God bless!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you so much for sharing part of your journey! I really love what you say above. I am so thankful that my DH was willing to step in and call on friends during the time I was wanting to convert. He was literally terrified!

It's the only time he has told me in 11 years that I was absolutley not allowed to do something.

 

At the same time, I worry about what I find, when I do find where God is calling me. Let's hypothetically say it was RCC. I can say right now, that he would be strongly opposed and might even think I was being led astray once again. His biggest issues would be: praying to the saints, praying to Mary, the Assumption, Immaculate Conception, Confessing to man, removal of salvation by mortal sin, not Sola Scriptura and purgatory. I also struggle with reconciling these things, but think I would be more open to learning about them to see if I could actually buy into them or if the information presented to validate them was enough for me. HOWEVER, this got me into trouble before and so I worry. Will I once again find something I "think" God is calling me to and emotion or impressionability will win over? Will I then buy blindly into the beliefs and practices? If I talk to a RCC Priest-he will obviously support RCC. If I talk to a Lutheran Pastor-he will inform me about dents in the RCC's Armour. And so on and so on. Everywhere I turn I get biased opinion (not that it's a bad thing) which makes it all the more hard for me to make an educated choice.

:willy_nilly:

 

I don't know if this will help at all, but since I am in a similar "searching" position, and I have come from a deeply entrenched protestant/evangelical background...I have decided to "shelf" for the moment, the concept of "absolute truth" as I have been taught.

 

For now, I'm chooseing to assess who I am now, what are my needs...now, and what will be best for my nuclear family. I'm chooseing to set aside my protestant "lens" for awhile, so I can honstly asses RC/EO. Before I make any hard and fast decisions, I will have to answer some questions for myself. I realize that. I felt that I was beating my head against a wall, trying to "fit" RC/EO into my worldview.

 

I think it is good to honestly look at things, it doesn't mean you have to make a decision in their favor. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a very interesting quote. One of my very favorite authors, John Piper talks about something similar in his book Future Grace...about how the church (Protestant) teaches that we should live rightly out of thankfulness for what Christ did for us in the PAST. While he says this is a good thought the POWER for actually living rightly is FAITH in what God will do in the FUTURE, both near and far. And he's a Baptist with Calvinist leanings. :001_smile:

 

Yes, the author was good to say this wasn't absolute. It was his observation on a culture as a whole. There are definately very wise people on all sides :D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now,this is where Catholics get that the Church interprets the Bible for the lowly masses that can't read for themselves. Mainly what that means is where the Bible says contradicting things we need to look to more than just the Bible. If verse 1 says something opposite of verse 2 we should look to Tradition, the catechism, the writings of the Doctors of the Church to see if verse 1 or verse 2 is more right. That way everyone is on the same page. .

 

On the topic of interpreting Scripture the sola scriptura camp is insistent that the Bible should interpret the Bible (not other writings) and that although the Bible is a compilation of separate books written over hundreds of years, in several different genres, by different authors that the Bible is ONE book and tells ONE story...that of God's redemptive work through Christ. Here's an article that explains it in decent layman's terms and contrasting RC, EO, and Arminian thoughts on the subject. The author is Calvinist and obviously will be biased in that direction but it's interesting and informative.

 

http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=1150&var3=main

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the author was good to say this wasn't absolute. It was his observation on a culture as a whole. There are definately very wise people on all sides :D.

 

 

Absolutely!! I think the observation is spot on with my experience. It's very interesting that people in such different camps also observe it and offer an alternative view that sounds quite similar. :001_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I talk to a RCC Priest-he will obviously support RCC. If I talk to a Lutheran Pastor-he will inform me about dents in the RCC's Armour. And so on and so on. Everywhere I turn I get biased opinion (not that it's a bad thing) which makes it all the more hard for me to make an educated choice.

:willy_nilly:

 

I think you are underestimating most sincerely religious priests and pastors.

 

I think there are a lot of people of many different faith traditions who would be willing and able to share their own POV and issues with you without proselytizing. I have had some amazing conversations with friends from other POVs where we have both been able to share and discuss without anyone feeling attacked or shoved into a corner.

 

If you are having a conversation that you feel is becoming a hard sell, excuse yourself or change the topic. But don't let that possibility keep you from having the conversation.

 

As much as I love message boards, they really aren't always the best way to approach this kind of conversation (meaning once it gets past factual information and onto the more personal connections part). The give and take is more forced than natural, and people are often willing to be more hardline than they would be in person. This is a personal journey for you, and I think it is one that you will be able to find your best answers and your best meaning in person.

 

I just want to encourage you to seek out people you can actually talk to in a natural conversation about these things. :001_smile:

Edited by Asenik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now,this is where Catholics get that the Church interprets the Bible for the lowly masses that can't read for themselves. Mainly what that means is where the Bible says contradicting things we need to look to more than just the Bible. If verse 1 says something opposite of verse 2 we should look to Tradition, the catechism, the writings of the Doctors of the Church to see if verse 1 or verse 2 is more right. That way everyone is on the same page.

 

How many times have you heard of a Protestant church splintering because Person X believed verse 1 was correct and Person Z believed verse 2 was correct? The Church interpreting these kinds of inconsistencies is one of the things that has kept the Church together for 2000+ years.

 

And Catholics believe the Bible was written using many types of human language such as prose, parable and poetry. The writers also use simile, hyperbole, and other figures of speech. This helps us understand what the Bible is saying.

 

Hope that helps some.

 

I think there are a few issues here. One is that you are taking the Bible as a "book." It wasn't. Each individual book was written by someone for a specific reason within the early church and then distributed outside its original readership when other people were interested in and enlightened by what that book said. But our concept as the Bible being what you have in your hand today would have been foreign to them. When we look to it as the sole authority, we are misusing it and asking it to be something that it was never intended to be.

 

The OT was a liturgical book to be read to the people in the Temple. And discussed in the Temple. You can't separate it from that without taking it out of context. Any time the NT refers to scripture, it is referring 1. to the OT only (because there was no NT and 2. to the scriptures being used in the same liturgical context. The Bible was not written as a devotional document but as a liturgical one. When you separate it from its use, you start to stray from its intent.

 

The writers of the NT scriptures were also writing without the context of the whole -- meaning there was no NT, they likely never read the rest of the NT, and at the time they wrote it, they likely had no concept that they WERE producing new scripture.

 

When the catholic/orthodox, pre-split church decided on which "books" to put into the NT, they took the writings that were in circulation and decided from them which ones were doctrinally correct AND appropriate for use in the liturgy. They were not compiling a "book" for you to take home, meditate upon and come to your own conclusions about. They had no way of anticipating that it would ever be used for that, since many people were illiterate and books were so expensive that most literate people only owned a few anyhow. The NT was compiled as what was officially approved to be read aloud at church services and interpreted by the Bishops of the church there.

 

As far as the protection of the Holy Spirit goes, that was never promised to individual believers. The writings are inspired and protected, but interpretation of them by individual believers is NOT. Most of the time, the issues we disagree over are not about the text itself, but the interpretation of that text.

 

When we read the Bible now as individuals, we struggle to read it in the context it was written because we are modern people with our own baggage to bring to the table. We can't help it. But coming to an ancient, liturgical document with the idea that it is every man for himself, and that we are all meant to read, interpret and understand it correctly is what has led to the massive splintering of Christianity where every man is his own judge and his own church.

 

Thank you so much ladies! This is very thought provoking!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this will help at all, but since I am in a similar "searching" position, and I have come from a deeply entrenched protestant/evangelical background...I have decided to "shelf" for the moment, the concept of "absolute truth" as I have been taught.

 

For now, I'm chooseing to assess who I am now, what are my needs...now, and what will be best for my nuclear family. I'm chooseing to set aside my protestant "lens" for awhile, so I can honstly asses RC/EO. Before I make any hard and fast decisions, I will have to answer some questions for myself. I realize that. I felt that I was beating my head against a wall, trying to "fit" RC/EO into my worldview.

 

I think it is good to honestly look at things, it doesn't mean you have to make a decision in their favor. :D

 

:grouphug:Thank you:001_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes I feel like communities like this forum are far too rare in our society. This forum is amazing because it represents the part of the spectrum where the spectrum curls around and meets the other side -- here in homeschooling is where the liberals and conservatives can meet, and in many ways I feel like it represents the best hopes that I have for the U.S.

 

:)

 

For the most part I wholeheartedly agree with what you said here. I love this forum for much the same reasons. And yet, I have to say I, personally, find a touch of irony in this statement being posted on a thread in which an entire slice of the forum community were summarily dismissed and excluded from the conversation from the start. I am truly, truly, not trying to "start something" here, and I do understand the reasons for our exclusion, and will certainly respect the request not to comment on the religious content of this thread. But do you see the irony?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the most part I wholeheartedly agree with what you said here. I love this forum for much the same reasons. And yet, I have to say I, personally, find a touch of irony in this statement being posted on a thread in which an entire slice of the forum community were summarily dismissed and excluded from the conversation from the start. I am truly, truly, not trying to "start something" here, and I do understand the reasons for our exclusion, and will certainly respect the request not to comment on the religious content of this thread. But do you see the irony?

 

Yes I do. It was difficult for me to even post on this thread at the beginning.

 

I chose to chalk it up to the OP working thru her own issues, wounds, and fears. Don't we all come to the boards imperfect? ;)

 

I had a sense of sadness for those who were excluded, but could have offered some wise words. I think it is a learning experience though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the most part I wholeheartedly agree with what you said here. I love this forum for much the same reasons. And yet, I have to say I, personally, find a touch of irony in this statement being posted on a thread in which an entire slice of the forum community were summarily dismissed and excluded from the conversation from the start. I am truly, truly, not trying to "start something" here, and I do understand the reasons for our exclusion, and will certainly respect the request not to comment on the religious content of this thread. But do you see the irony?

 

Amy, the only reason that I excluded the LDS church is because I studied with Missionaries and spoke with a Bishop at length (whom I LOVE with all my heart and also was my counselor for over 2 years.The man is a true gift and I don't know if I would be alive on this earth w/o him). I feel my faith walk with the LDS church is complete, while many of the of the other faiths talked about here I have no education on and therefore am looking to further that. I have many LDS friends that are very near and dear to my heart and some of the most beautiful women I know today. Please know that I DO NOT in any way have an axe to grind with the LDS church. As with some of the other faiths mentioned in this thread, there are some things I personally have a hard time reconciling with, as is the same with the LDS church-at this point in my walk. I do believe your faith has value and there are many things I love about the LDS church-many things I long for in my search. However, for me at this point it is important too, that I seek truth from the perspective of those things I have seen as requirements if you will, from my upbringing: that the Bible is w/o error and that the Trinity is real. As a sister in Christ, please forgive me if I have caused you any hurt by asking that your faith be excluded from this thread. I do not at all mind if you share your thoughts, opinions etc. in this thread. My only intention was to receive more information based on the things I wanted to include in this part of my walk and things I lack education on. Again, my apologies.

Edited by OregonNative
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I do. It was difficult for me to even post on this thread at the beginning.

 

I chose to chalk it up to the OP working thru her own issues, wounds, and fears. Don't we all come to the boards imperfect? ;)

 

I had a sense of sadness for those who were excluded, but could have offered some wise words. I think it is a learning experience though.

 

We do all come here imperfect (me too!). I couldn't agree more. And I do sympathize with the OP, and others who share her point of view. And it has been a very interesting thread to read through, even though I am one that has been specifically uninvited from participating in the discussion. I appreciate the insights that have been shared. And I really don't want to derail the discussion at all. I think I would, however, like beg a thought now and then toward those who've been fenced out, particularly when it comes to how some ideas are worded, as it can be difficult to sit on the outside of the closed gate and read about how wonderful it is that all (approved) perspectives have value, and all traditons (except yours) has something wonderful to contribute. That is all. Please continue with the interesting conversation. I shall continue to sit here with my mouth shut and fingers off the keyboard. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...