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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
question for christians
04 Apr '06 23:23
Back to Top