Denomination

[LessThan Any]

What if two people disagree about what the Word says and claim a different intepretation from the Holy Spirit?

LessThanAny: This not only happens with 2 or more, but, unfortunately, also within a single person:

"Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be." James 3:10

It ought not to be, but we know as James indicates that it is so even in people who claim to be serving God and who claim to have the Holy Ghost in them.

The problem is that until we become overcomers of our own world of the flesh as Jesus overcame His, we continue in some measure to be double-minded. The new man may be alive within us, but the old man is not yet completely dead and this old fellow continues to press to retain or re-establish his dominion within you and me.

So what is the answer? The answer, I believe, is to learn to always recognize the voice of God in our hearts as opposed to other voices, which are also speaking to us.

Chestertonrules: That's not the answer Jesus gave us:

Matt 18

16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Jesus knew exactly who the "church" was when He spoke those words. Each of us may believe that we do, but if we disagree about who the "church" is then...

Taking along two witnesses who agree with you is only going to accomplish something "good" if all three of you agree with Jesus. This brings us back to the question of who is really agreeing with Jesus and who is saying that he is agreeing with Jesus.

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matt 7:21

[enoob57]

What if two people disagree about what the Word says and claim a different interpretation from the Holy Spirit?

This is an honest question that is resolved only in the understanding of commitment to The Word!

What you are saying is that anyone who disagrees with you does not have a commitment to The Word!

Who disagrees with His Word! It is a Spiritual matter not one of popery... Love, Steven

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

You say that Christ is the ultimate authority, which of course is true. However, men on earth often disagree about what Christ taught. Then what?

Jesus gave the Church HIS authority so we would be united in Truth.

Uhh, chesterton, that's according to the Roman Catholic Church's interpretation of scripture, and we disagree with them on that, so the question remains... then what?

Your solution is to listen to man and follow the traditions of man, and God repeatedly told us not to do that.

Our solution is to see what God said, and God did tell us to do that "The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life" (John 6:63), "the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15).

But, the Roman Catholic Church is characterized by divisions and disagreements. Each Pope has different opinions that they voice to the Catholic world about faith, morals and decrees, every Cardinal, Bishop and Priest has different emphasis and beliefs which are frequently critical of things that are accepted as Catholic dogma, and there are rivaling divisions (such as the ecclesiasts versus the monastics, which involves further divisions of the Jesuits, Franciscans, Benedictines, etc. each with differing interpretations of scripture) within the umbrella of Roman Catholicism that differ more hotly than the different denominations found else where in Christendom… and this says nothing of the divisions between the Catholic and other traditions such as the Orthodox that Vatican II sought to reconcile.

The criteria you use to dismiss Protestantism is acutely characterized by Roman Catholicism, and since it seems to be the point on which you want to stand, I’d have to point out that your foundation is sinking sand.

Matt 16

18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Matthew 18

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Luke 10

16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

John 20

21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

1 Timothy 3

15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

That’s right, just splatter another post with passages with which we’ve dealt time and time again, but you refuse to interact with in any meaningful way.

You’ve thoroughly demonstrated your ability to regurgitate – that’s the only thing you’ve established thus far.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

I have been following this thread for some time now.

It appears to me that it has become out of control.

It’s almost as if both sides have blown their tops and are almost at the point of anger and almost have a hate for each other;

which I admit is a strong word and perhapse misused.

In John 13:34-35 (NIV)

We read, “34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35, By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

Sadly, in my humble opinion; the love has gone out of this thread.

Hi ncn, and thanks for your sober words of concern! They are most appropriate and timely.

If I may push back a little, for my part my love is not gone.

I didn't use to contend for the faith, as we're instructed to do. I used to be perfectly content in letting people believe whatever they wanted and say whatever they wanted. I believe in the security of my own salvation, so I was literally content to let other people go to hell.

It has become abundantly clear to me through what God has done in my life in ways that are far, far, far too clear to ignore that my attitude came from a self-love that made me hate others compared to myself (how else could you stand idly by while people condemned themselves, given the passage "How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?" (Romans 10:14)).

Honestly, the sole reason I come back to these discussion is love and concern for others. If it was up to me, I'd really rather be fishing.

If you go back and read all the post from start to the latest, this thread is not a very good example to put forward Christ who died for us.

The Christ that shed His blood and for God that gave His only begotten son to die for our sins.

Jesus said, I am the way the Truth and the Light. In my opinion we loose that light if we fight in anger with someone that disagrees with our views be it doctrinal or way of worship.

Anger is never without an argument, but seldom with a good one. This is what the thread has turned into.

Jesus Himself was angery from time to time. Please remember, my friend that Eccelsiaties tells us there is a time for everything. Sometimes anger is appropriate.

I appreciate the warning, and again it's timely and warrented, so please don't think I'm dismissing your concern, but there are times when false doctrines must be confronted and treated with the care they deserve, not out of hatred for the one presenting them, but out of concern not only for those they may lead astray but also for their own sake.

Scripture tells us to "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them" (Ephesians 5:11), and if we find that people are teaching false doctrines we are to "rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith" (Titus 1:13). We're not just to rebuke them sharply for their own saks but also publically for the sake of others "Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning" (1 Tim. 5:20).

People who teach false doctrines "must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach" (Titus 1:11).

I don't hate chesterton, but I won't allow him to lead others astray, both for their sake as well as for his, "And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck" (Mark 9:42).

I believe chesterton "preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted" (2 cor. 11:4), for which the penalty is damnation according to Galations 1:1-9).

So the question is, out of love how could I sit by and let him do that to others, or himself?

It saddens me.

Just my two pence worth for what it’s worth. (And yes probably not much)

Nigel.

God bless you Nigel, and let me know what you think about what I've said and we'll work it out - sound good?

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Actually, it's not just the Catholic Church, it is also the Orthodox and Anglican Churches. In other words, about 70% of Christianity, including the oldest and largest Churches.

... and the Anglican Church is condemned to hell according to the criteria of the Eucharist in the Canons of the Council of Trent, since they believe in the real presence but not the real body and blood, so there's no unity there.

So, not only is that totally irrelevant, but it's also oversimplified to the point of misleading and when examined closely disconfirms your position.

Despite that, this point simply commits the logical fallacy of the argument from antiquity.

So, you've helped to establish that your point is inconsistent, irrelevant and fallacious.

Is there anything else you'd like to add?

Absolute rubbish, as usual. You shouldn't post about the Catholic Church given your ignorance and bigotry.

O please.

Is it your assertion that there aren't factions such as the Ecclesiats and Monsatics? Are there various orders? Can we find disagreements among Popes, Cardinals, Preists, etc?

If you disagree with simple facts it demonstrates only foolishmess, so your bluster doesn't hold any weight.

But this simple fact of the matter is that you shouldn't be posting about the Catholic Church at all. This is not an appropriate venue for you to be peddling your Catholic wears.

The Doctrines of the Church do not change.

I'm willing to grant that there has been apostasy ever since the beginning, so if the RCC wants to lay claim to being the first to embrace that apostasy and running with it ever since then I have no trouble granting that.

You do realize though, that in having said that you're stuck with the sins of the Inquisition from which the supposedly unchanging Church could not help but continue to embrace, right?

You keep making statements that shoot one foot, then your retorts shoot the other foot. You're running out of appendages to fill with friendly fire.

Disciplines may change, but they change as one body, not as a fragmented mass as is characterized by protestantism.

Oaky Doakey.

The Roman Catholic Church is riddled with division and strife, and has all sorts of competing schools of thought and doctrines... but if you brand them disciplines it doesn't matter?

Why? Why is that unity but everyone's disagreements division?

Allow me to furnish the answer: No reason. Your assertions are arbitrary and inconsistent.

But notice this: division is not a problem if we’re all one in Christ as scripture and Bible believing Christians accept, but it’s a huge problem if you’re defining unity according to subscription to the winds of doctrine according to a supposed one true church. Then, and only then, would that institution have to demonstrate that there is no disunity, and the RCC simply does not and cannot accomplish such a demonstration.

Chesterton, it’s by your own standards that the RCC is condemned.

Make an intelligent point and perhaps we can discuss them. You simply deny the words of scripture and as anyone reading this thread can see, it's not persuasive.

First of all, this is a very good example of how delusional you are.

See how many people disagree with you here? You're in no position to speak on anyone's behalf.

In addition, are you leaning on your own understanding to evaluate my posts, or is the Pope telling you what to write?

Just one more inconsistency, but I’m getting sick of your mindless (by your own admission, since you celebrate that you’ve forfeited understanding to men) Catholic propaganda.

Anyone else want to deal with this nonsense for a while? I'm bored.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

... and the Anglican Church is condemned to hell according to the criteria of the Eucharist in the Canons of the Council of Trent, since they believe in the real presence but not the real body and blood, so there's no unity there.

So, not only is that totally irrelevant, but it's also oversimplified to the point of misleading and when examined closely disconfirms your position.

Despite that, this point simply commits the logical fallacy of the argument from antiquity.

So, you've helped to establish that your point is inconsistent, irrelevant and fallacious.

Is there anything else you'd like to add?

I am merely pointing out that your interpretation is a modern view that is not even held by the majority of Christians today. Most Christians are Catholic, Hundreds of millions more are Orthodox or Anglican.

Get it?

Of course I get it - its far from complicated, so we can add simplistic to irrelevat, inconsistent and fallacious.

Any more?

Your view was made up by moderns in order to avoid obedience to those sent by Jesus.

And if that were true it would be a fine example of the genetic fallacy which seeks to undermine a belief by attacking the origin of the belief.

Once again, your point is simply demonstrably logically fallacious - but how could you be expected to be rational if you've submitted your capacity for understanding to someone else?

God says "Come let us reason together", not "Trust in man who has but a breath in his nostrils".

You worship crackers and fruit and you justify such pagan practices by forgoing rationality - if that's the wages of the RCC, then it's simply a cult like any other.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Oaky Doakey.

The Roman Catholic Church is riddled with division and strife, and has all sorts of competing schools of thought and doctrines... but if you brand them disciplines it doesn't matter?

Why? Why is that unity but everyone's disagreements division?

Allow me to furnish the answer: No reason. Your assertions are arbitrary and inconsistent.

But notice this: division is not a problem if we’re all one in Christ as scripture and Bible believing Christians accept, but it’s a huge problem if you’re defining unity according to subscription to the winds of doctrine according to a supposed one true church. Then, and only then, would that institution have to demonstrate that there is no disunity, and the RCC simply does not and cannot accomplish such a demonstration.

Chesterton, it’s by your own standards that the RCC is condemned.

The Catholic Church is unifed in doctrine. If you want to know what the Church teaches on a subject you can find out. There is an answer.

One that fits my discription of arbitrary to a tee.

Thanks.

You continue to post falsehoods about the Church and I'm not sure how you think this helps your case.

The Church is ONE, HOLY, and CATHOLIC.

It is not. It is divided, unholy and pagan.