Which religious group?

[Foofoogal]

am very curious about Protestant ecclesiology.

Good. Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find, knock and the door will be opened.
You can directly pray to the Father. Man is fallible. He is not.

 

[John in Covina]

This view has always interested me. Churches deal in (or so they all say) truth. Which means that for the Christian, one denomination is right, and the others are, by varying degrees, wrong. Two preachers look at a certain passage in the Bible two different ways - one is necessarily wrong. For those who attend Protestant services, I would be curious to hear your view on this phenomenon of fractions. How does one go about deciding what is right, and what is wrong, when so many individual churches claim to be in the right?

*****************
Here are two ways to look at the Bible:
1) If you have an idea of what you want the Bible to say and search hard enough and maybe do some redaction you'll find what you want in there,

2) the best way to interpet the Bible is to use the Bible as the guideline, the word (spelling) is Herminudics or something like that.

3)If you go back to the Greek and Hebrew with the Ancient style of these languages in mind you find that in comparison English cannot convey some of the tense or ideas of time or even the word love which comes in some different forms and has different meanings that are not conveyed by the English current definition of love.
Heck there is stuff in German you just can't say in English!

The King James version seems to have a better grasp for concepts in Olde Tyme English but people that I know that have delved into the Greek and Hebrew say there is no comparison for the feeling, meaning and depth. As we get new translations sometimes the meanings, depth of the idea and feeling get changed. (It is my understanding that some denomnations have given credence to some translations over others to support their views.)

A better way to describe the differences in the denominations may be to say that each denomination is like a glass of water and those that are closer to the Truth are clearer than others.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Thanks, that was an informative post. I guess my question, at its essence, was: what exactly is the Protestant conception of "church"? I've only really studied Catholic theology, but am very curious about Protestant ecclesiology.

Well...I was raised Catholic when very small. My mother was Catholic...so I probably have a better understanding of the Catholic church than most Protestants. I think for Catholics..the church is the authority. The true first church...but then you already know that.
IMO...the church for protestants...is the bride of Christ.....but the congregation of believers..following the Truth..or Holy scripture. Some literally...some not so much. Some Protestant churchs are more organised than others. Some belong to a larger group of churches..or denomination. For some this structure is the church. Others believe that when two or more get together in Christ's name there is church. Among protestants things can be quite deverse. There are alot of Protestant churches. However...the makeup of church is described in the Bible in various places. The first church structure is discribed in "the Acts" in my Bible.
In essence..I think many protestants view church as a group of believers following the authority of the Bible scriptures...where Catholics tend to follow their structured church as the authority based on the bible..traditions...etc.

 

[Samsa]

Good. Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find, knock and the door will be opened.
You can directly pray to the Father. Man is fallible. He is not.

Thanks for the encouragement, but if I ever return to belief, it will be the strict Irish Catholicism of my fathers, not Protestantism.

 

[deanglen]

There's a divinity that shapes our ends,
Rough-hew them how we will.
Hamlet, V, ii

dean

 

[HoosierDaddy]

There's a divinity that shapes our ends,
Rough-hew them how we will.
Hamlet, V, ii

dean

Profound...

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Thanks for the encouragement, but if I ever return to belief, it will be the strict Irish Catholicism of my fathers, not Protestantism.

I'm in hopes you do...Samsa!

 

[Foofoogal]

Originally Posted by Samsa
Thanks for the encouragement, but if I ever return to belief, it will be the strict Irish Catholicism of my fathers, not Protestantism.

I am familiar with the Catholic church and even attended quite a bit.
I know many good Catholics that adhere to the teachings of the church yet also read the Bible for themselves.
This is what I meant by that.

 

[carter]

Originally posted by Diamondback
Mine, but that's not relevant to this discussion.

Amen to that.

As an open-minded, convicted Christian who was raised in the Church, I sincerely believe that moderation (not to be confused with lukewarmness) in all things is good.
As noted earlier, some may consider this to be cute or silly and choose to call those with whom they disagree those who will be vomited.

I have served as a Deacon in my church.
I have taught and ministered in my church for years.
I have been on numerous mission trips.
I served as the Witness Commission Chair for a tri-state area when I was in high school.
I have seen one of my children have a miraculous event in her life at four months of age.
I have baptized my own son, among others.
I have sought the face of the Lord most of my life.

AND

I have heard the Pope described as the anti-Christ by persons in authority in the Protestant Church. (Humbug!)
I have witnessed the dissolution of entire congregations because of zealots who said "not in my pulpit" when they disagreed with the pastor. (I always thought it was the Lord's pulpit myself.)
I have dealt with so-called Christians who have not charity toward nor respect for the views of others within their own congregation.
I have dealt with those who believe that the Bible they carry and the version they believe is the only true Word. (At least read the information on where the bible we carry came from.)
I have seen young people leave the church in droves for years because they perceive that Christians are rigid, condemning, and judgemental. (When did the people of a God who said, "I will cast all your sins into a sea of forgetfulness and remember them no more", become so proud that they would not/could not do what their Lord said He would do?)
I am sick to death with self-righteous Christians (all righteous is the Lord's) who continually hijack the Christian faith to support their own narrow ends.
It is not my Faith in the Lord that is continually tested, it is my faith in His people.

Frankly, these are among the reasons that many people look at Christians and don't want to be near them much less emulate them.

It is said that "they will know you by your love for one another". How I wish that were true.

I don't need to have my seatbelt on. I'd rather not be in the car. Thankfully, there is more than one vehicle on this road.

I have, as gently as possible, encouraged open-minded discussion, moderation, respect, and sensitivity. I am done.

They have healed also the hurt of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace. the Bible, Jeremiah 6:14

 

[Bebop]

This view has always interested me. Churches deal in (or so they all say) truth. Which means that for the Christian, one denomination is right, and the others are, by varying degrees, wrong. Two preachers look at a certain passage in the Bible two different ways - one is necessarily wrong. For those who attend Protestant services, I would be curious to hear your view on this phenomenon of fractions. How does one go about deciding what is right, and what is wrong, when so many individual churches claim to be in the right?

Your last question here is the interesting one and the one that is very easy to answer......You use what history and science have brought forth and you add a large amount of common sense to it. You realize that what all the churches and religions claim is their interpretation of an old book of rules that was forced upon the masses in order to be able to control them as the civil codes control us today. You understand how people need guidance and answers and religion is there for that but certainly it can not speak the truth. It can only ask you to believe it is speaking the truth.

I find it interesting that this poll indicates that most are non believers yet most of the posts have been from believers or on the fence believers. I am not quite sure what that means but I can guess that non believers find it impossible to argue the bible which is mostly based on belief, not fact and that believers love the opportunity of dispersing their beliefs in public. Would I be wrong in assuming this? [huh]

 

[carter]

Originally posted by Bebop
I find it interesting that this poll indicates that most are non believers yet most of the posts have been from believers or on the fence believers. I am not quite sure what that means but I can guess that non believers find it impossible to argue the bible which is mostly based on belief, not fact and that believers love the opportunity of dispersing their beliefs in public. Would I be wrong in assuming this?

Bebop, I appreciate your assumption. Based on some of the posts in this thread, there is evidence to support it.

Please believe me, not all believers are looking for an argument nor the opportunity to broadcast their beliefs whether welcome or not. Some would rather influence others by their actions and deeds and share their faith through a life lived in service to their Lord. Not all are sounding brass and clanging cymbals.

Based on scriptural evidence, it seems to me that Jesus rather enjoyed a good discussion and often turned aggressive comments aside rather than be trapped in argument. Nor did he encourage the Disciples to debate and argue but rather to offer their testimony freely and then move on if it was not well-received.

A truly dangerous man.

 

[deanglen]

Based on scriptural evidence, it seems to me that Jesus rather enjoyed a good discussion and often turned aggressive comments aside rather than be trapped in argument. Nor did he encourage the Disciples to debate and argue but rather to offer their testimony freely and then move on if it was not well-received.

A truly dangerous man.

:eusa_clap

dean

 

[HoosierDaddy]

I find it interesting that this poll indicates that most are non believers yet most of the posts have been from believers or on the fence believers. I am not quite sure what that means but I can guess that non believers find it impossible to argue the bible which is mostly based on belief, not fact and that believers love the opportunity of dispersing their beliefs in public. Would I be wrong in assuming this? [huh][/QUOTE]

****Strange I've read this counted the same way in another post.....but I count 153 for those who most likely would consider themselves believers....to 77 who claim to be non believers on the poll...but I suppose I am just arguing again.....
Perhaps I'm missing something,tho....****

 

[Bebop]

There are few people more admiralble to this atheist than the reasonable, well spoken, conversationalist and wondering why this individual seems so calm, assertive and content with life only to find while in deep discussion that it is because of their firm belief in their religion. In other words, it is much more admirable to confirm an individuals beliefs by his or hers actions than by their overstated verbal outbursts. I know it's impossible to deal with much more than the written here so I take that into account as I hope others take it into account when deciphering what I write.

 

[Bebop]

I find it interesting that this poll indicates that most are non believers yet most of the posts have been from believers or on the fence believers. I am not quite sure what that means but I can guess that non believers find it impossible to argue the bible which is mostly based on belief, not fact and that believers love the opportunity of dispersing their beliefs in public. Would I be wrong in assuming this? [huh]

****Strange I've read this counted the same way in another post.....but I count 153 for those who most likely would consider themselves believers....to 77 who claim to be non believers on the poll...but I suppose I am just arguing again.....
Perhaps I'm missing something,tho....****[/QUOTE]


That is exactly what I stated. More believers posting than non believers.

 

[carter]

Originally posted by Bebop
There are few people more admiralble to this atheist than the reasonable, well spoken, conversationalist and wondering why this individual seems so calm, assertive and content with life only to find while in deep discussion that it is because of their firm belief in their religion. In other words, it is much more admirable to confirm an individuals beliefs by his or hers actions than by their overstated verbal outbursts. I know it's impossible to deal with much more than the written here so I take that into account as I hope others take it into account when deciphering what I write.

:eusa_clap

Well-stated. A little forbearance goes a long way.

 

[Foofoogal]

As noted earlier, some may consider this to be cute or silly and choose to call those with whom they disagree those who will be vomited.

I didn't say this. Jesus said this in Revelations. Lukewarm Christians. I can only assume we have a difference of opinion on this word. I was speaking in general terms not to a specific person here or persons.

For those who attend Protestant services, I would be curious to hear your view on this phenomenon of fractions

Samsa was asking this question and I gave my answer to why I believe there are fractions.

I am not approaching this thread as evangelizing but as conversation only.
I do find it a bit troubling though that I would be spoken of as a clanging brass or self righteous which I believe was addressed to me. I find it also interesting that this would be coming from a Church of Christ member of which this church believe they are the only church. This to me seems pretty self righteous. Because of the major differences of my religion I can only assume it is why we are seeing so differently.
I will though say that even among the disciples there was great differences of opinions. Paul and Peter for examples. I am much more prone to lean towards Peter.

Jesus will have a Bride and she will be spotless.

 

[Joie DeVive]

I find it interesting that this poll indicates that most are non believers yet most of the posts have been from believers or on the fence believers. I am not quite sure what that means but I can guess that non believers find it impossible to argue the bible which is mostly based on belief, not fact and that believers love the opportunity of dispersing their beliefs in public. Would I be wrong in assuming this? [huh]

****Strange I've read this counted the same way in another post.....but I count 153 for those who most likely would consider themselves believers....to 77 who claim to be non believers on the poll...but I suppose I am just arguing again.....
Perhaps I'm missing something,tho....****

That is exactly what I stated. More believers posting than non believers.

So sorry for all the quotes, but I thought them necessary for clarification.
I don't see a discrepancy, as HoosierDaddy pointed out, there are more believers according to the poll, and thus it makes sense that more of them are posting. I count believers to non-believers as nearly 2 to 1. Yes, there are 77 atheists/agnostics/etc, but if you add all the small groups of believers together, you get 157. More of them here, means more of them to post. So yes, in this case, I think you would be incorrect in assuming that the phenomenon you are experiencing is the loquaciousness of believers. It's just a numbers game.

 

[carter]

Jesus said this in Revelations. Lukewarm Christians.

The last book in the New Testament, the book of Revelation, also know as the Revelation of Saint John the Devine, is John's account of a vision he had from Christ while on the Isle of Patmos.

The following passage is from the King James version of the Bible, Revelation. 3:15-16. Jesus says,

"I know thy works, that thou art neither hot nor cold: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then, because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, Iwill spue thee out of my mouth.

Taken in context, this is a portion of the address and warning to the church in Laodicea, one of the seven churches in Asia addressed within the entire passage.The others are Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatria, Sardis, and Philadelphia. All are addressed and there is some grievance against all. In context, this entire section is a warning to all who would have heard it within the body of Christianity. (Very few people could read. This was probably read ina group setting.) The entire passage addresses problems within the Christian Fellowship.

Who would have heard this? Adherents of the seven churches in Asis and others.

Could this have been applicable then and in the future? Yes it could.

Note: who is the judge?

This is why Hermeneutics - The art or science of interpretation and explanation of scripture and Exegesis - the act of critical explanation and intrepretaion of scripture, are important in understanding what is recorded and the context within which it exists.

Pulling verses or lines out of contect and using them as a prooftext without understanding or presenting/explaining the original context is neither valid nor helpful.

I will though say that even among the disciples there was great differences of opinions. Paul and Peter for examples. I am much more prone to lean towards Peter.

Just for clarification:

Peter was one of the original 12 Disciples of Christ as recorded in the New Testament. He actually knew Jesus. He followed Jesus in his lifetime.
Disciples are/were also Apostles.

Paul was not one of the original 12 Disciples of Christ. Paul never met Jesus while he (Jesus) lived as a man on earth.
Paul was an Apostle. He was originally known as Saul, a man of the Jewish faith who actively persecuted followers of Christ after the Death, Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension as recorded in the New Testament. Saul had an experience/encounter/vision on the road to Damascus that led him to become a follower of Christ and an Apostle to the Gentiles (those not of the Jewish faith).

All Disciples are Apostles. All Apostles are not Disciples.

(However, there is a branch of Christianity called the Disciples of Christ. No, they did not know him in-the-flesh but this is their corporate identity. Just go with it.)

There were many differences among the early followers of Christ. Not just between Peter and Paul.

a Church of Christ member of which this church believe they are the only church.

I have never heard anyone within this branch of the Christian faith make this statement or condemn someone who wasn't aligned with them. However, not all congregations are the same. It may have happened in more than one branch of Christianity. Certainly this division didn't exist on day one. There is a broad spectrum from conservative to somewhat liberal. This is not unusual within the Christian, or any other, faith or belief system. Please bear in mind that I choose to serve as part of this body of believers. I have also served within the Evangelical United Brethren (later United Methodist) and Episcopalian branches of the Christian faith. There is much to be gleaned from those who are Christian no matter what denomination.

To the broader perspective:

I believe it to be true of most, if not all, belief systems that there are both conservative and liberal points of view and many in between. This is the basis for Religious Thought. Inquiry and discussion will never end. Nor should they Man is an inquiring creature. It's in our nature.

No one has a monopoly on any belief system.

End of the road. I believe this is my stop.

 

[Samsa]

All Disciples are Apostles. All Apostles are not Disciples.

You have this backwards, I believe.