Christian Denomination Selector

[sanantone]

I would agree with this in principle, but even here the issue of interpretation comes into play. Most rules changes like this that I've seen ("conservative" or "liberal") are justified by doing exactly what Christians in general already do and have always done: emphasizing one part of the Bible over another and/or applying a new interpretation to a particular passage. A study of Christian history, particularly as related to doctrinal belief and biblical interpretation, shows this quite nicely.

Blatant misinterpretation in the first place allows room for these changes.

My opinion is that denominations are not a good thing.

Ask yourself: Are political parties a good thing?

No.

[IrishJohn]

Blatant misinterpretation in the first place allows room for these changes.

Perhaps. Yet determining such itself requires...wait, for it... interpretation. Which brings us back to Square One.

[sanantone]

Perhaps. Yet determining such itself requires...wait, for it... interpretation. Which brings us back to Square One.

Yes, more accurate interpretation.

[IrishJohn]

Yes, more accurate interpretation.

For doctrinal purposes, this can be a highly subjective description.

[sanantone]

For doctrinal purposes, this can be a highly subjective description.

There is such a thing as misinterpretation even when it comes to the Bible.

[IrishJohn]

There is such a thing as misinterpretation even when it comes to the Bible.

True. The New Testament itself is full of examples of misinterpreting the Old Testament, strictly speaking, but was still in harmony with an existing exegetical tradition at the time. Yet all of this becomes an argument when sifting through competing doctrinal claims drawn from it. There are verses that seem to favor baptismal regeneration, others that have been argued as not doing so. It is extremely difficult to clearly establish the doctrine of the Trinity, hypostatic union, the nature of the Eucharist, etc. from the text itself without reference to extrabibilical tradition. And the list goes on and on. This is one reason why I personally think the slogan sola Scriptura is patently false on its face because Christians have always used outside sources in formulating their beliefs.

[EI2HCB]

"Sola Scriptura is patently false..." I disagree, however, how modern evangelicals use it today is different than in previous generations. To Luther, and other reformers sola scriptura meant instruction from scripture alone, as opposed to the Magisterium (sic) In modern evangelicalism it has degenerated into single verse proof texts to establish a point of view. In the reformed tradition, interpretation were based on the aspect of what they called "the whole consul of God" as opposed to a single text. In modern Christianity a single text can be used to promote almost anything. The issue boils down to was Jesus Christ who he said he was or an imposter? Was his death on the cross and resurrection a demonstration of God working salvation for those who believe? Will he come again to judge the living and the dead, including me based on my response to the call of Acts 17:30 "Though God has overlooked those times of ignorance, he now commands everyone everywhere to repent" NASB Acts 17:30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. All the other issues are side issues which result in denominations but we all have a personal relationship with God - one of love and respect or one of rebellion and dare I say it hate. Joshua 24:15 challenges me and all people when it say's "But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve"

[sanantone]

True. The New Testament itself is full of examples of misinterpreting the Old Testament, strictly speaking, but was still in harmony with an existing exegetical tradition at the time. Yet all of this becomes an argument when sifting through competing doctrinal claims drawn from it. There are verses that seem to favor baptismal regeneration, others that have been argued as not doing so. It is extremely difficult to clearly establish the doctrine of the Trinity, hypostatic union, the nature of the Eucharist, etc. from the text itself without reference to extrabibilical tradition. And the list goes on and on. This is one reason why I personally think the slogan sola Scriptura is patently false on its face because Christians have always used outside sources in formulating their beliefs.

A lot of this has to do with not wanting to let go of pagan traditions.

[publius2k4]

A lot of this has to do with not wanting to let go of pagan traditions.

This is a very true statement. A lot of Christians I talk to do not believe that the two biggest holidays within the Christian Religion (Christmas and Easter) were pagan holidays that were adopted by the early Christian church in order to make it easier for people to convert...

"Come over to our religion.....we celebrate the same holidays!"

I honestly believe that biblical misinterpretations have been the primary cause of war throughout much of recorded history. And it happens even now, with various Islamic sects waging war on each other, and other the other religions that worship the same historical god as Islam (namely, Judaism and Christianity).

I say, let people believe what they want to believe. It doesn't inconvenience me at all when people believe what they feel in their hearts. Paul wrote, in Philippians 2:12, "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling"

The issue I have is when people's beliefs require them to try to make me believe as they do, or kill me for not converting (which is big in Islam...and was a big thing in Catholicism in the early days).

I'm an atheist. I used to hate telling people that just because I felt ashamed of my beliefs (especially family, since I grew up in a VERY religious family). However, I knew that one couldn't simply change their beliefs on a whim, because that's not how belief works. With that bit of empathy in mind, I truly want to allow people to believe as they like, as long as their beliefs don't interfere with the RIGHTS of others.

[sanantone]

I'm the same way. I believe in the complete separation of church and state as some of our forefathers did, but many people today don't want to admit.