Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Riley W





Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 857
Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5
votes: 10
Location: Manitoba

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lol, I doubt people confess their affairs, etc. to another church person.
Dauphin





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 98
Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrsocko wrote:
Quote:
If you have a problem with confession, your real problem is with the words of Christ as recorded by St. John:

"[Jesus] said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.' And then he breathed on them and said to them, 'Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained'" (John 20:21-23).


Nothing wrong with confession in my book. In my(evangelical) church it is recommended that you have people you are accountable to(that you can confess your sin to).


It doesn't work this way. If you read the chapter in context, it's clear that Christ is giving His apostles a specific authority to forgive sins. He doesn't offer the authority generally to all believers. This is why the sacramental priesthood is so important - it carries on the commission Christ gave to His apostles to administer the sacraments.
Ruth





Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 243
Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5
votes: 7

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 8:08 am    Post subject: Re: Christian Denominations I have Issues With Reply with quote

What a brave topic!
You do realize westmanguy that this thread has the potential to insult many of your fellow Christians. ;-)

Dauphin wrote:
He conferred on the apostles the authority to forgive sins. That authority remains in the Catholic clergy today, who trace their sacramental orders back the apostles.

Correction
The Catholic clergy BELIEVE they can trace their sacramental orders back to the apostles. This is a demonstrably false claim since
1. There are more than 12 members of the clergy (and as per Acts, there were only 12 apostles) and
2. The clergy is neither physically descended from the apostles, nor do they have heirs to whom they can pass on their office.
The RCC would be wiser to stop arguing for Apostolic Succession and instead argue the spiritual authority God gives to elders (bishops). This is something they can support from Scripture.

Now, do I dare start listing issues with denominations? Hmm.
Let me ponder it, because I have a lot to say on this (rather ingenious though somewhat potentially divisive) topic.

--Ruth
Dauphin





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 98
Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:36 am    Post subject: Re: Christian Denominations I have Issues With Reply with quote

Ruth wrote:
What a brave topic!
You do realize westmanguy that this thread has the potential to insult many of your fellow Christians. ;-)

Dauphin wrote:
He conferred on the apostles the authority to forgive sins. That authority remains in the Catholic clergy today, who trace their sacramental orders back the apostles.

Correction
The Catholic clergy BELIEVE they can trace their sacramental orders back to the apostles. This is a demonstrably false claim since
1. There are more than 12 members of the clergy (and as per Acts, there were only 12 apostles) and
2. The clergy is neither physically descended from the apostles, nor do they have heirs to whom they can pass on their office.
The RCC would be wiser to stop arguing for Apostolic Succession and instead argue the spiritual authority God gives to elders (bishops). This is something they can support from Scripture.



Your first objection is interesting. It's not clear how Christ could have expected His religion to spread throughout the world with only 12 ordained ministers. If you have some evidence that He intended holy orders to remain only with 12 people, I'd be interested in seeing it. I feel however, that there is a very strong basis for the belief that the priestly ministry wasn't supposed to be limited to the apostles. This is from the Catholic Enclyclopedia:

From Scripture we learn that the Apostles appointed others by an external rite (imposition of hands), conferring inward grace. The fact that grace is ascribed immediately to the external rite, shows that Christ must have thus ordained. The fact that cheirontonein, cheirotonia, which meant electing by show of hands, had acquired the technical meaning of ordination by imposition of hands before the middle of the third century, shows that appointment to the various orders was made by that external rite. We read of the deacons, how the Apostles "praying, imposed hands upon them" (Acts 6:6). In II Tim., i, 6 St. Paul reminds Timothy that he was made a bishop by the imposition of St. Paul's hands (cf. 1 Timothy 4:4), and Timothy is exhorted to appoint presbyters by the same rite (1 Timothy 5:22; cf. Acts 13:3; 14:22).

From this, we can see not only that the Apostles appointed Bishops to be their direct successors, but that they also conferred Holy Order upon clergy of a lower rank.
Ruth





Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 243
Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5
votes: 7

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:53 pm    Post subject: Re: Christian Denominations I have Issues With Reply with quote

Dauphin wrote:
Ruth wrote:
The RCC would be wiser to stop arguing for Apostolic Succession and instead argue the spiritual authority God gives to elders (bishops). This is something they can support from Scripture.

Your first objection is interesting. It's not clear how Christ could have expected His religion to spread throughout the world with only 12 ordained ministers. If you have some evidence that He intended holy orders to remain only with 12 people, I'd be interested in seeing it. I feel however, that there is a very strong basis for the belief that the priestly ministry wasn't supposed to be limited to the apostles.


It wasn't. I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say.
Apostolic Succession argues for direct succession from the original apostles. This can really only be accomplished one of two ways: transference of office from one apostle to another or inheritance. Creating new office bearers is NOT the same thing as succession, and this is what the RCC tries to include under Apostolic Succession. They shouldn't.
Another of the problems with Apostolic Succession is the split with the Orthodox church. If they want to be consistent, they must argue that officials within the Orthodox Church also hold offices handed down to them by the Apostles... and as far as I am aware, they do not. (If I am wrong, by all means correct me). The RCC then turns around and states that Protestants do not have Apostolic Succession... this is hypocrisy and wrong in any case since all of the original Reformers were at one time Catholics and some such as Zwingli were even priests.

-Ruth
Dauphin





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 98
Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:19 pm    Post subject: Re: Christian Denominations I have Issues With Reply with quote

Ruth wrote:
Dauphin wrote:
Ruth wrote:
The RCC would be wiser to stop arguing for Apostolic Succession and instead argue the spiritual authority God gives to elders (bishops). This is something they can support from Scripture.

Your first objection is interesting. It's not clear how Christ could have expected His religion to spread throughout the world with only 12 ordained ministers. If you have some evidence that He intended holy orders to remain only with 12 people, I'd be interested in seeing it. I feel however, that there is a very strong basis for the belief that the priestly ministry wasn't supposed to be limited to the apostles.


It wasn't. I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say.
Apostolic Succession argues for direct succession from the original apostles. This can really only be accomplished one of two ways: transference of office from one apostle to another or inheritance. Creating new office bearers is NOT the same thing as succession, and this is what the RCC tries to include under Apostolic Succession. They shouldn't.


I understand. I think the problem is that we're confusing terms. What you're referring to is Episcopal Lineage, which refers to the original patriarchies founded by the Apostles. The Church accepts that this lineage is unique.

Apostolic succession, though, applies to all the clergy. Priests are ordained by a Bishop, who received His episcopal consecration from other Bishops, who were all consecrated themselves by more Bishops, going all the way back to the apostles.

Quote:

Another of the problems with Apostolic Succession is the split with the Orthodox church. If they want to be consistent, they must argue that officials within the Orthodox Church also hold offices handed down to them by the Apostles... and as far as I am aware, they do not. (If I am wrong, by all means correct me). The RCC then turns around and states that Protestants do not have Apostolic Succession... this is hypocrisy and wrong in any case since all of the original Reformers were at one time Catholics and some such as Zwingli were even priests.


I believe that the Catholic Church recognizes the apostolic succession of the Orthodox Churches, since we recognize that they posess a sacramental priesthood and have valid sacraments.

The church doesn't recognize the apostolic succession of protestant communities either because they abandoned the concept of the episcopate and the priesthood altogether, or because they began using an erroneous formula for episcopal consecration - as with the Anglicans.
Ruth





Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 243
Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5
votes: 7

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:38 pm    Post subject: Re: Christian Denominations I have Issues With Reply with quote

Dauphin wrote:
I understand. I think the problem is that we're confusing terms. What you're referring to is Episcopal Lineage, which refers to the original patriarchies founded by the Apostles. The Church accepts that this lineage is unique.

Ok.

Quote:
I believe that the Catholic Church recognizes the apostolic succession of the Orthodox Churches, since we recognize that they posess a sacramental priesthood and have valid sacraments.

I know they recognize their sacraments. I am not sure about Apostolic Succession though. I would have to read up on it more

Quote:
The church doesn't recognize the apostolic succession of protestant communities either because they abandoned the concept of the episcopate and the priesthood altogether, or because they began using an erroneous formula for episcopal consecration - as with the Anglicans.

And as far as I am concerned, the RCC is wrong on this point.

Also, the RCC uses Apostolic Succession to argue at least two things (off the top of my head) things that are not Biblical. They view the Church as a means to grace. They also believe that only they can dispense the Eucharist. These things simply cannot be argued from Scripture.

--Ruth
Dauphin





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 98
Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:33 pm    Post subject: Re: Christian Denominations I have Issues With Reply with quote

Ruth wrote:
Also, the RCC uses Apostolic Succession to argue at least two things (off the top of my head) things that are not Biblical. They view the Church as a means to grace.


The Church views the sacraments as a means of grace. The Church is a means to grace insofar as it has the sacraments.

Quote:
They also believe that only they can dispense the Eucharist. These things simply cannot be argued from Scripture.


Who else do you imagine can dispense the Eucharist? Christ didn't give all the faithful the power to consecrate the Eucharist. He alone can consecrate the Eucharist, through His sacramental priesthood. This can certainly be argued from scripture, as Christ told His apostles: "Do this in memory of me". This wasn't a general instruction for all the faithful.
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Who else do you imagine can dispense the Eucharist? Christ didn't give all the faithful the power to consecrate the Eucharist. He alone can consecrate the Eucharist, through His sacramental priesthood. This can certainly be argued from scripture, as Christ told His apostles: "Do this in memory of me". This wasn't a general instruction for all the faithful..


Really? What happens to those of us who do it wrong?

Are not all Christians, sons and daughters(adopted) of God. If they are then who better to serve the eucharist.
Dauphin





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 98
Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrsocko wrote:
Quote:
Who else do you imagine can dispense the Eucharist? Christ didn't give all the faithful the power to consecrate the Eucharist. He alone can consecrate the Eucharist, through His sacramental priesthood. This can certainly be argued from scripture, as Christ told His apostles: "Do this in memory of me". This wasn't a general instruction for all the faithful..


Really? What happens to those of us who do it wrong?

Are not all Christians, sons and daughters(adopted) of God. If they are then who better to serve the eucharist.


Whatever protestant denominations think they "do", it is not the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ made sacramentally present under the appearance of bread and wine. It is his ignominious sacrifice, presented for us again on the altar.

This Blessed Sacrament can only be confected by a priest.
Ruth





Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 243
Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5
votes: 7

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dauphin wrote:
The Church views the sacraments as a means of grace. The Church is a means to grace insofar as it has the sacraments.

Not exclusively.
Quote:
Who else do you imagine can dispense the Eucharist? Christ didn't give all the faithful the power to consecrate the Eucharist.

Yes He did.
Quote:
He alone can consecrate the Eucharist, through His sacramental priesthood.

No. This is where the RCC gets it wrong. It is not through the priesthood only.
Quote:
This can certainly be argued from scripture,

Not well it can't.
Quote:
as Christ told His apostles: "Do this in memory of me". This wasn't a general instruction for all the faithful.

Uh
Wrong again. This instruction was pass down to all believers. If He didn't, then Paul's letter to the Corinthians dealing with their improper observance of communion makes no sense.
Quote:
Whatever protestant denominations think they "do", it is not the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ made sacramentally present under the appearance of bread and wine. It is his ignominious sacrifice, presented for us again on the altar.

Sigh.
And here we have the (very wrong) doctrine of Transubstantiation.
I am not sure if this thread is the place for this discussion or not.

-Ruth

This Blessed Sacrament can only be confected by a priest.[/quote]
Dauphin





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 98
Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ruth wrote:
Dauphin wrote:
The Church views the sacraments as a means of grace. The Church is a means to grace insofar as it has the sacraments.

Not exclusively.


Please explain and provide reference.

Quote:

Quote:
Who else do you imagine can dispense the Eucharist? Christ didn't give all the faithful the power to consecrate the Eucharist.

Yes He did.


Please provide evidence of this.

Quote:

Quote:
He alone can consecrate the Eucharist, through His sacramental priesthood.

No. This is where the RCC gets it wrong. It is not through the priesthood only.


Again, you're simply contradicting me. You're not making an argument. If the power to confect the Eucharist was not given exclusively to the apostles and their ordained successors, then who was it given to?

Quote:

Quote:
This can certainly be argued from scripture,

Not well it can't.


Then argue your point of view from scripture.

Quote:

Quote:
as Christ told His apostles: "Do this in memory of me". This wasn't a general instruction for all the faithful.

Uh
Wrong again. This instruction was pass down to all believers. If He didn't, then Paul's letter to the Corinthians dealing with their improper observance of communion makes no sense.


No, it makes perfect sense from the Catholic perspective. Unless they discern the Body and Blood of Christ, they should not receive the Eucharist. This is why many of them became ill and died. How could treating a symbol irreverently possibly have these severe repercussions?

Where do you get the idea, also, that the Corinthians had no priests?
Quote:

Quote:
Whatever protestant denominations think they "do", it is not the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ made sacramentally present under the appearance of bread and wine. It is his ignominious sacrifice, presented for us again on the altar.

Sigh.
And here we have the (very wrong) doctrine of Transubstantiation.
I am not sure if this thread is the place for this discussion or not.



I'd be more that willing to discuss it. Tell me, what did Christ mean when He said "This is My Body... This is My Blood", was he just playin a little prank on the apostles? What did he mean when He said "My Flesh is real food and My Blood is real drink"? Does that sound like a metaphor to you?
Paul Morrison





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 33
Reputation: 38.1Reputation: 38.1Reputation: 38.1Reputation: 38.1
votes: 2
Location: Thunder Bay

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I find this thread somewhat interesting given that I am writing a book that I'm tentatively titling: "Heresies of Modern Evangelical Churches".

In my opinion, the failings and errors of the Holy Roman Catholic Church is well documented, as are those of the united and episcopal churches (and some Canadian Anglican churches). However, few are willing to examine the heresies (don't trip over the words - I simply mean "things we've got wrong which distort our image of God") that are present in evangelical churches. And, yes, I am an evangelical, I attend an evangelical church regularly, and I love it. I love Jesus, and I write it as a means to hopefully challenge some aspects of theology which distract evangelicals from the truth.

In particular:

Predestinarianism is not all wrong, but it is mostly wrong. Humans are not 'totally' depraved (being in God's image), and limited atonement is a completely errant theological construct.

Fiat creationism is not all wrong, but it is certainly not all right either. It is a misplaced hyper literalism that falls apart under scrutiny.

Most evangelicals theology of women relies on the same theological literalism which also falls apart under scrutiny (anyone read Gal. 3 lately?)

Our view of the bible is distorted into a 'rule book', 'encyclopedia' or 'instruction manual', and that colours how we interpret it. We interpret it literally because that's the way we've been taught to read it, and we fail to see how some passages are better understood figuratively.

We condemn homosexuals while ignoring our own sin, and in doing so we disobey Jesus' teaching that the sinless are to throw stones, not sinners.

We have become so entwined with modernism that we cannot concieve of any other way of understanding faith, and in so doing we have put ourselves in need of another reformation. We have capitulated to our culture and need a reform to fix it.

and I could go on, but that's just a taste of a much larger book in the works. The purpose of writing it is not to throw stones or condemn us (since as an evangelical I am also condemning myself), but to challenge us to actually think about theology, and not just accept our dictated understanding.
Ruth





Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 243
Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5
votes: 7

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dauphin, maybe we should start a thread on Roman Catholicism and Protestantism so we don't derail this thread. What do you say?

Paul Morrison wrote:
Humans are not 'totally' depraved (being in God's image),

Um...
What do you do with Romans and Paul's argument for being a slave to sin... which is what Total Depravity is?
I don't suppose you are familiar with Pelagius?

Quote:
limited atonement is a completely errant theological construct.

I would be interested in hearing your argument for this. Limited atonement is the single most poorly understood aspect of Calvinist theology.

Quote:
Fiat creationism is not all wrong, but it is certainly not all right either. It is a misplaced hyper literalism that falls apart under scrutiny.

Really?
Care to elaborate?

Quote:
Most evangelicals theology of women relies on the same theological literalism which also falls apart under scrutiny (anyone read Gal. 3 lately?)

Let me guess: you think women can hold office.

Quote:
We condemn homosexuals while ignoring our own sin, and in doing so we disobey Jesus' teaching that the sinless are to throw stones, not sinners.

You are assuming this is what Christians do.
There are many Christians who are just as concerned with their own sins as they are with the sins of others.

Quote:
We have capitulated to our culture and need a reform to fix it.

By doing what?
Embracing more of our culture as your post insinuates?

Quote:
The purpose of writing it is not to throw stones or condemn us (since as an evangelical I am also condemning myself), but to challenge us to actually think about theology, and not just accept our dictated understanding.

Somehow I doubt your motives. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but honestly this sounds like a lot of the post-modernist whoohah that has infiltrated many churches... with disastrous results I might add.
But by all means prove me wrong.

-Ruth
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Tell me, what did Christ mean when He said "This is My Body... This is My Blood", was he just playin a little prank on the apostles? What did he mean when He said "My Flesh is real food and My Blood is real drink"? Does that sound like a metaphor to you??


Yes. It sounds like a metaphor. If it is really his blood and flesh then tell me what does blood and flesh taste like? I have taken communion in a Catholic church before(the bread) and it tasted like bread. It did not taste like flesh.

Jesus said this because he wanted this as a symbol of our devotion to him. If we accept him as our saviour we are one flesh with him, as we are become the bride of Christ, married to him. Two become one flesh.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Christian Denominations I have Issues With

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB