Do you
-
What? That Korean cult?Originally posted by crazy monkey:One of the main purposes of the Unification Church is to unite all of the fragments of Christianity into a single body. -
Moon believed that the Bible could not be understood without the aid of a book called Divine Teaching, which is a compilation of his personal teachings. Crap.Originally posted by crazy monkey:One of the main purposes of the Unification Church is to unite all of the fragments of Christianity into a single body.
-
when new demoninations appear were they treated as crap by mainstream church also ?Originally posted by The return:Moon believed that the Bible could not be understood without the aid of a book called Divine Teaching, which is a compilation of his personal teachings. Crap. 
-
.........
-
This is what the Roman Catholics Church and Charismatic church is working towards.Originally posted by crazy monkey:One of the main purposes of the Unification Church is to unite all of the fragments of Christianity into a single body.
And this is what the fundamentalist is working against. -
Originally posted by fandango:This is what the Roman Catholics Church and Charismatic church is working towards.
And this is what the fundamentalist is working against. -
As long as they believe the God and the bible, I don't think they are treated as a crap. The unification church is a crap. Go and find out more.Originally posted by crazy monkey:when new demoninations appear were they treated as crap by mainstream church also ? -
who are fundamentalistOriginally posted by fandango:This is what the Roman Catholics Church and Charismatic church is working towards.
And this is what the fundamentalist is working against. -
ecumenism is not possible unless and until both Churches (in this case RC n Protestant) come to a common ground and beliefs. this is not very possible because there are some major doctrinal issues that throughout centuries cannot be resolved. One church says this and their basis is from traditions and church fathers and there isnt much to discuss further in this case; while Protestant denominations esp the bible bashing kind will insist that all things they practice must abide strictly to the bible without looking at the context in which that verse appears.
I personally is not supportive of ecumenism not because i hate to mix around but rather it is logically impossible. The only basis i would want ecumenism to occur is when both churches hold the Bible as the sole authority and final say in all doctrinal issues but then again...using which bible? 66 books or Jerusalem Bible? -
for this to happen is almost impossible i guess.Originally posted by NT2:The only basis i would want ecumenism to occur is when both churches hold the Bible as the sole authority and final say in all doctrinal issues but then again...using which bible? 66 books or Jerusalem Bible?
but more importantly, we have to learn to live with our differences
-
The Catholic Church bases doctrine and dogma on the Bible as well as Tradition(this tradition must never contradict scripture).
ecumenism is not possible unless and until both Churches (in this case RC n Protestant) come to a common ground and beliefs. this is not very possible because there are some major doctrinal issues that throughout centuries cannot be resolved. One church says this and their basis is from traditions and church fathers and there isnt much to discuss further in this case; while Protestant denominations esp the bible bashing kind will insist that all things they practice must abide strictly to the bible without looking at the context in which that verse appears.
I personally is not supportive of ecumenism not because i hate to mix around but rather it is logically impossible. The only basis i would want ecumenism to occur is when both churches hold the Bible as the sole authority and final say in all doctrinal issues but then again...using which bible? 66 books or Jerusalem Bible?
Protestants as you have mentioned base all teachings on the Bible. Now, my question is this: The Bible was not around the time of early Christians, how did they practice sola scripture?
As a side note the fundamentalist purely literal interpration of the Bible is not exactly approriate because during those times writing and reading in a literal fashion was unheard of.e.g Revalation,Pslams
However, I agree with you ecumenism at this point is not logically possible. But that doesn't mean we don't try. Because after all the body of Christ is supposed to be undivided.
The late Bro. Roger(Swiss Protestant) was a good example. -
Protestants argue that some of the Tradition were unheard of when the Bible was composed (before Nicea). They argue that stuffs like the Marian theology is not supported in the bible, but Catholics choose to make it one of their main focus.Originally posted by plo30360:The Catholic Church bases doctrine and dogma on the Bible as well as Tradition(this tradition must never contradict scripture).
Protestants as you have mentioned base all teachings on the Bible. Now, my question is this: The Bible was not around the time of early Christians, how did they practice sola scripture?
However, I agree with you ecumenism at this point is not logically possible. But that doesn't mean we don't try. Because after all the body of Christ is supposed to be undivided.
The Bible was not around the early days, but the gospels and epistles were already written and circulated widely. It is not the case of "no books (bible) and all talk (tradition)". Sola Scriptura before the canonization is a misconception.
There are advantages in diversity as well. Some like to speak in tongues, some like to venerate Mary, some like to drink blood and eat body of Jesus, blah blah .. but if all of them are saved, then well be good.
Ecumenism may slow down the evangelical missions. It may threaten non believers. There are many disadvantages. -
Tradition is not all talk it considers the written work of the Apostles as well as the early church fathers as part of itself. e.g Paul's verse about teaching being handed down orally or by letter. (2 Thess. 2:15)
The Bible was not around the early days, but the gospels and epistles were already written and circulated widely. It is not the case of "no books (bible) and all talk (tradition)".
The epistles would come under the written tradition handed down, till the Bible was produced. The Bible then would inspire Tradition e.g Augustine's writing based on the Pslams,etc.
In this both Scripture and Tradition comes together.
Could you explain this a bit further?
Sola Scriptura before the canonization is a misconception.