How do you learn what your denomination believes?

[Messy]

I also care about gay rights because all people deserve to be treated as image bearers of God, and because human dignity extends to everyone without exception.

I am glad that my country lets gays, who are persecuted in other countries, live here. They kill them in some countries. But they also protect pedo's. We had a christian reformed gay group here for gays in reformed churches, who don't get any help to get rid of it and get healed. Turned out the leader raped his own son for years. He got 2 years jail. They protect the perpetrator instead of the victim.
Children may be adopted by lesbians and gays. Now they may do a better job raising kids than abusive hetero's, but the kids are forced to live like that and think it's normal.

 

[Albion]

But we have very different bibles, there is no "the bible" between us; though you may have a better view of the deuterocanonical books and sections in Esther and Daniel than some.

They're different to the extent that yours includes a number of uninspired books. Your church acknowledged as much when it removed a number of these from the Catholic version of the Bible a few centuries ago. It was a tacit acknowledgment that this particular claim of the Protestant Reformers was correct. In other words, no one on CH holds any kind of advantage when this is the issue.

I also care about gay rights because all people deserve to be treated as image bearers of God, and because human dignity extends to everyone without exception.

Don't we all?

 

[Albion]

Natch, I expected push-back from you.
Paul was met with much opposition but it didn't stop him. Speaking forth God's Word is part of teaching as laid out in the Great Commission and gives direction to the sheep.

Matthew 28:18-20
And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. [19] Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, [20] teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

Well, it's simply because your recent posts seem to be addressing some idea that wasn't part of this discussion that I didn't say more.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Out of curiosity, what is your 'bottom line' source of authority?

God.

 

[Josiah]

Out of curiosity, what is your 'bottom line' source of authority?

@prism


If you want to explore this more, I suggest starting a thread in the theology section: "Authority in the Roman Catholic Church."

But as a former Catholic, I can summerize it for you. The RCC points to 3 things:

1) Scripture. But this is the unique canon of it itself alone and as interpreted by it itself alone. The words on the page aren't the authority but rather the MEANING of those words as the RCC itself alone determines.

2) Tradition. But this is NOT Christian Tradition, of the church catholic, but of it itself alone. The historic teachings of the unique RCC alone are the Authority for the teachings of the RCC.

3) Magisterium. The Leadership of the RCC alone is the Authority for the RCC. What the Leadership of the RCC itself along currently teaches is the Authority for the RCC itself.

These 3 things work in complete concert and are how God leads. The RCC's own unique interpretion of its own unique canon.... the historic views of it itself... the leadership of it itself. These must be seen together... and are God. Self looking in the mirror at self.

Now while this epistemology can (and should be) rejected and repudiated.... it's often not much different in Protestantism. In reality, the issue of Auhority is not an easy one. But while Protestants tend to reject self leads self and the authority being OUTSIDE self (the written, objective WORD for example), Catholicism embraces and defends this, looking INSIDE itself.

Again, let's not derail the good thread here. If you want to explore this more, we can (I can give quotes from the Catholic Catechism for all this), we can. But perhaps this summery is adequate for the time being.




.

 

[atpollard]

If you want to explore this more, I suggest starting a thread in the theology section: "Authority in the Roman Catholic Church."

A worthwhile topic … the Baptist/Independent (non-denominational) answer is a bit different from the Lutheran/Methodist/Anglican answer, which differs from the RCC answer which is slightly different from the EOC answer. So the general topic has some broader roots than “let’s all pile on the RCC” (because all of you got the Baptist Distinctives wrong)

 

[Albion]

So the general topic has some broader roots than “let’s all pile on the RCC” (because all of you got the Baptist Distinctives wrong)

How so?

 

[atpollard]

How so?

Needs a new topic, but several Baptist Distinctives deal with AUTHORITY and if you all agreed, you would be Baptists rather than part of a large Denomination.

 

[Albion]

Needs a new topic, but several Baptist Distinctives deal with AUTHORITY and if you all agreed, you would be Baptists rather than part of a large Denomination.

Uh, well, does that mean that believing the Bible to be our authority is not common to the Protestant churches?

Or just that, with a few well-known points of doctrine, Baptists depart from the other leading denominations by insisting (sort of) on the independence of the local congregation)?

If that is more or less what you are referring to, I'd say that there isn't actually much of a difference when it comes to AUTHORITY, since almost all Protestants affirm the Authority of God's word and derive their forms of church administration from Scripture.

 

[prism]

God.

Defined by who? what?

 

[prism]

@prism


If you want to explore this more, I suggest starting a thread in the theology section: "Authority in the Roman Catholic Church."

But as a former Catholic, I can summerize it for you. The RCC points to 3 things:

1) Scripture. But this is the unique canon of it itself alone and as interpreted by it itself alone. The words on the page aren't the authority but rather the MEANING of those words as the RCC itself alone determines.

2) Tradition. But this is NOT Christian Tradition, of the church catholic, but of it itself alone. The historic teachings of the unique RCC alone are the Authority for the teachings of the RCC.

3) Magisterium. The Leadership of the RCC alone is the Authority for the RCC. What the Leadership of the RCC itself along currently teaches is the Authority for the RCC itself.

These 3 things work in complete concert and are how God leads. The RCC's own unique interpretion of its own unique canon.... the historic views of it itself... the leadership of it itself. These must be seen together... and are God. Self looking in the mirror at self.

Now while this epistemology can (and should be) rejected and repudiated.... it's often not much different in Protestantism. In reality, the issue of Auhority is not an easy one. But while Protestants tend to reject self leads self and the authority being OUTSIDE self (the written, objective WORD for example), Catholicism embraces and defends this, looking INSIDE itself.

Again, let's not derail the good thread here. If you want to explore this more, we can (I can give quotes from the Catholic Catechism for all this), we can. But perhaps this summery is adequate for the time being.




.

So MoreCoffee brings up sola scriptura in post #38 and I get blamed for derailing? Gotcha

 

[MoreCoffee]

Defined by who? what?

I created a thread called "Ultimate authority" click here.

 

[Foghorn]

How do you learn what your denomination believes?

For Lutherans, we have the Small Catechism and for those who want more, the Book of Concord containing the Lutheran Confessions.

Yes, but, we can't always go by a Catechism or even a statement of faith. As history shows many churches don't follow anymore. For example, do you believe Luther would recognize the Lutheran church if he was able to return?

It's also many do not follow their statements of faith, and they go as far as changing them if necessary.

But one thing, you are right as far as Catechism goes, it should be able to. But things change for those itching ears. Sadly

 

[prism]

I created a thread called "Ultimate authority" click here.

I don't care to jump into that can of worms; not being RCC, I would obviously disagree with the continuation of the Canon.

 

[Albion]

Yes, but, we can't always go by a Catechism or even a statement of faith.

Do you mean that these Lutheran churches are what's called "non-confessional?" or do you mean that they have more recently represented their historic creeds and statements as being something that mattered in the past but today are not considered authoritative?

As history shows many churches don't follow anymore. For example, do you believe Luther would recognize the Lutheran church if he was able to return?

Yeh. I can't think of any really important change or reversals. Maybe you had some in mind.

But we also do know that there are both conservative and liberal churches that are part of the Lutheran spectrum.

 

[Foghorn]

Do you mean that these Lutheran churches are what's called "non-confessional?" or do you mean that they have more recently represented their historic creeds and statements as being something that mattered in the past but today are not considered authoritative?

Scripture teaches in the last days many will want their ears tickled. Is Lutherism exempt from that?

Yeh. I can't think of any really important change or reversals. Maybe you had some in mind.

Adherence to biblical doctrines. If youre really interested, I am sure you can locate a lot of Lutherans, many probably one here. Pull out some original Lutheran doctrines and match them up. Respectfully, I have more important things to do that interest me.

But we also do know that there are both conservative and liberal churches that are part of the Lutheran spectrum.

Of course.

 

[Albion]

Scripture teaches in the last days many will want their ears tickled. Is Lutherism exempt from that?

Not from that threat, but it is one of the denominations that has basically retained its original purpose, teachings, and worship style. The question that was asked was about Lutheranism in particular, so that was the answer.

Adherence to biblical doctrines.

Well, if that is the point, then Lutheranism is a good example of a Christian denomination that has resisted innovation in doctrine. As we know, there are quite a few other denominations that have moved quite far from their original beliefs.

 

[Foghorn]

Not from that threat, but it is one of the denominations that has basically retained its original purpose, teachings, and worship style. The question that was asked was about Lutheranism in particular, so that was the answer.

Well, if that is the point, then Lutheranism is a good example of a Christian denomination that has resisted innovation in doctrine. As we know, there are quite a few other denominations that have moved quite far from their original beliefs.

Well thanks for sharing your opinion with me.

 

[Josiah]

"When I look at myself, I don't see how I can be saved. But when I look at Christ, I don't see how I can be lost."
Luther

@Foghorn

I like your signature line...



.

 

[Josiah]

Yes, but, we can't always go by a Catechism or even a statement of faith. As history shows many churches don't follow anymore. For example, do you believe Luther would recognize the Lutheran church if he was able to return?

It's also many do not follow their statements of faith, and they go as far as changing them if necessary.

But one thing, you are right as far as Catechism goes, it should be able to. But things change for those itching ears. Sadly

@Foghorn

SADLY, Lutheranism has not been exempt from the relativism and liberalism that has infected much of Christianity like a cancer. In fact, much of modern liberalism was invented by a few German Lutheran theologians in the 19th Century and quickly spread. And you can see the fruits of this in much of European Lutheranism and in the USA by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America ( ELCA), although the ELCA is more conservative than many in Europe.

But FORTUNATELY this did not infect all Lutheranism. There were "hold outs" who stayed with traditional, conservative Lutheranism. Today, these are sometmes known as "Confessional Lutherans" (meaning only they still hold to the teachings found in the Lutheran Confessions). There are these conservative/traditional Lutheran groups exist all over the world. They are represented in the USA by the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS), the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) and some other groups.,

In the US, perhaps 2/3's of Lutherans belong to the more liberal branch and 1/3 to the conservative/traditional/confessional groups. Lutheranism is divided just like most large Protestant faith-communities, along those who have bought into liberalism, relativism, etc. and those who are faithful to traditional/conservative positions. The later are aligned with Luther's Small Catechism and the Lutheran Confessions - and thus their views are easy to know. The liberal groups hold to the Confessions as "historical documents" and agree with them "in so far as they are correct." And thus their views are hard to determine and vary a lot from parish to parish, pastor to pastor. BTW, here at CH, I think all the Lutherans are conservative/confessional - I don't think we have any members from the ELCA here.



Blessings!


- Josiah



.