question for christians

question for christians

Spirituality

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

w

Joined
02 Jan 06
Moves
12857
04 Apr 06

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]The teaching was nothing short of heresy.

Which "teaching" are you referring to? The teaching on purgatory? On indulgences? On obtaining indulgences for acts of charity?
The teaching I was referring to is the teaching that you can buy your way out of purgatory which was why Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic church. My point was that every teaching the church utters, no matter the denomination, should be verified by scripture. The word of God should be held higher than what man may tell you that is contrary.

X
Cancerous Bus Crash

p^2.sin(phi)

Joined
06 Sep 04
Moves
25076
04 Apr 06

Originally posted by whodey
The teaching I was referring to is the teaching that you can buy your way out of purgatory which was why Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic church. My point was that every teaching the church utters, no matter the denomination, should be verified by scripture. The word of God should be held higher than what man may tell you that is contrary.
Would you support a Christian who refused to pay taxes on this reasoning? What if they donated the amount they would owe directly to their church?

w

Joined
02 Jan 06
Moves
12857
04 Apr 06

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Would you support a Christian who refused to pay taxes on this reasoning? What if they donated the amount they would owe directly to their church?
That has already been covered by scripture. Render to Ceaser what is Ceasers. No I would not.

l

London

Joined
02 Mar 04
Moves
36105
05 Apr 06

Originally posted by whodey
The teaching I was referring to is the teaching that you can buy your way out of purgatory which was why Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic church. My point was that every teaching the church utters, no matter the denomination, should be verified by scripture. The word of God should be held higher than what man may tell you that is contrary.
There is no such teaching. Luther got it all wrong.

And what do you mean by "verify by Scripture"?

Cape Town

Joined
14 Apr 05
Moves
52945
05 Apr 06

Originally posted by whodey
The teaching I was referring to is the teaching that you can buy your way out of purgatory which was why Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic church. My point was that every teaching the church utters, no matter the denomination, should be verified by scripture. The word of God should be held higher than what man may tell you that is contrary.
My understanding was that nearly every teaching in every Church was 'verified by scripture' or even better originated in scripture. However the basic problem is that scripture itself is self contradictory and open to multiple interpretations.
As an interesting side point, what makes you think that what is in the Bible is 'scripture' and anything else is not? Wasn't the descision on which books to put in the Bible made by men?

j

Joined
03 Feb 06
Moves
395
05 Apr 06
1 edit

The Bible speaks to each one of us according to our faith. Therefore, we must rely upon our faith to even begin to interpret each word, not taking anything out of context. Several scriptures refer us to church, but literally, one has to question the specific underlying command to attend. Since Christ is the Head of the Body (the church), we have to specify the fact that church isn't a building but our lives are the church. Christ lives in us and we live in Him. The church (building) is the place we're we edify one another, which strenghtens the Body. to "stand against the wiles of the devil." Eph.10:10-11. Communion, tithing, worship, prayer, santification, etc., all are done inside (the physical building) and outside (our spirit-filled lives as the Body) of the church.

w

Joined
02 Jan 06
Moves
12857
05 Apr 06

Originally posted by lucifershammer
There is no such teaching. Luther got it all wrong.

And what do you mean by "verify by Scripture"?
Here is what I am talking about. I even have provided this from a Catholic perspective.

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/indulgences.htm

It appears that the selling of indulgences was not an "official" doctrine, but was a common practice that was not corrected until Martin Luther broke away from the church. My point is that man is corruptable and fallible and needs God's word to walk by to offset man's sin nature tendencies.

w

Joined
02 Jan 06
Moves
12857
05 Apr 06

Originally posted by twhitehead
My understanding was that nearly every teaching in every Church was 'verified by scripture' or even better originated in scripture. However the basic problem is that scripture itself is self contradictory and open to multiple interpretations.
As an interesting side point, what makes you think that what is in the Bible is 'scripture' and anything else is not? Wasn't the descision on which books to put in the Bible made by men?
You say that scripture is contradictory. Where do you think it contradictory? The fact that you have many interpretations only goes to show how fallible mankind is. What usually happens is men have agenda's of their own and then try to fit scripture around their agenda's to help themselves. This can be seen with my previous post about indulgences. They were not seeking God, they were seeking their own agenda and using God to help themselves.

l

London

Joined
02 Mar 04
Moves
36105
05 Apr 06

Originally posted by twhitehead
My understanding was that nearly every teaching in every Church was 'verified by scripture' or even better originated in scripture. However the basic problem is that scripture itself is self contradictory and open to multiple interpretations.
As an interesting side point, what makes you think that what is in the Bible is 'scripture' and anything else is not? Wasn't the descision on which books to put in the Bible made by men?
Right on both counts...

l

London

Joined
02 Mar 04
Moves
36105
05 Apr 06

Originally posted by whodey
It appears that the selling of indulgences was not an "official" doctrine, but was a common practice that was not corrected until Martin Luther broke away from the church.
Not only was it not "official" doctrine, selling indulgences went against official doctrine.

l

London

Joined
02 Mar 04
Moves
36105
05 Apr 06

Originally posted by whodey
You say that scripture is contradictory. Where do you think it contradictory? The fact that you have many interpretations only goes to show how fallible mankind is. What usually happens is men have agenda's of their own and then try to fit scripture around their agenda's to help themselves. This can be seen with my previous post about indulgences. They were not seeking God, they were seeking their own agenda and using God to help themselves.
You haven't shown that indulgences themselves are unbiblical - just that selling them are (and I'm not certain you've showed even that). In which case, the Church was right about it all along.

Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
05 Apr 06
1 edit

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Not only was it not "official" doctrine, selling indulgences went against official doctrine.
But like all RCC doctrines there were loopholes of course. And this widespread practice continued for 100's of years with the knowledge of the Church. So long as certain conventions were followed, it was A-OK. You know this, of course; Luther wasn't just making things up (in this case anyway).

w

Joined
02 Jan 06
Moves
12857
05 Apr 06

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Not only was it not "official" doctrine, selling indulgences went against official doctrine.
I get the feeling that you feel that Papal authority and Catholic doctrine are infallible. Is this your position?

l

London

Joined
02 Mar 04
Moves
36105
05 Apr 06

Originally posted by no1marauder
But like all RCC doctrines there were loopholes of course. And this widespread practice continued for 100's of years with the knowledge of the Church. So long as certain conventions were followed, it was A-OK. You know this, of course; Luther wasn't just making things up (in this case anyway).
But like all RCC doctrines there were loopholes of course.

Is this relevant to the discussion, or are you just doing your usual soapbox routine?

And this widespread practice continued for 100's of years with the knowledge of the Church.

And you will find (if you bother to look) plenty of evidence that various Popes tried to reign in the abuses at various points of time.

l

London

Joined
02 Mar 04
Moves
36105
05 Apr 06

Originally posted by whodey
I get the feeling that you feel that Papal authority and Catholic doctrine are infallible. Is this your position?
Are my personal beliefs relevant to this discussion?