sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
1, and 2. From what you and many others think,people just get their own undersanding from the scriptures and if everyone sees things differently ,well thats ok. My friend that is not what (2Peter 1:20-21) says at all. The bible says scritpure is of NO PRIVATE interpretation. WE must read the bible and get the very meaning God wanted us to have when he breathed those words (inspired). We can understand the bible by reading,studying,and dwelling upon the very word of God
First of all, you don't seem to realize the continuity of Biblical interpretation that exists between most major denominations. This is not a "private" thing. It is an agreement between different parts of the one Body. WE do read the Bible -- and WE do strive for correct meaning. There are hundreds of seminarys full of theologians and exegetes who do that very thing. Why do you assume that WE do not read and strive for proper interpretation? Because WE disagree sometimes? That's the nature of the very human Body that Christ dwells within.
Secondly, you're dismissing one of God's greatest gifts to us -- the human mind. God expects us to think; God wants us to think. To say that we "must not let our minds guide us" is ludicrous and dangerous. And hogwash.
Thirdly, much of the Bible was not written as a textbook. There are narrative histories (much of it interior, as opposed to exterior history), there is poetry (in what way can either the Psalms or the Song of Solomon be considered "textbooks?"), there is an account of a dream, there are accounts of prophecy. All of this is the interior story of God's relationship with God's people. And very little of it reads like a Chilton's manual.
That's ridiculous. The Church is the Church, and has always been the Church. The Roman Catholics and the Eastern Catholics had a parting of the ways -- but even that did not consitute denominationalism. The Roman and Eastern bishops claim a fairly accurate historic succession of authority that comes very close to the Apostles. That doesn't sound like denominationalism to me.3. My friend,the first denomination was the Roman CatholicChurch.There was a church before the Roman Catholic Church and it was the church of Christ (Mt 16:18) (Rom 16:16). The Roman Catholic Church broke off from the Church of Christ.
I don't think you know what "ecumenism" means. The Church has always been ecumenical. The Roman Church has always been ecumenical. The Eastern Church has always been ecumenical. Most protestant denominations are in process of becoming more ecumenical and less "provencial."
In truth, every group changes how it operates, in order to include more people -- or, to put it a better way, to make worship more meaningful and accessible for worshipers. I can guarantee you that your group does not worship "the same way" as the ancient church worshiped.
We aren't all doing different things in worship. We all ascribe glory to God, we confess, we praise, we give thanks, we hear the Word (Hebrew scripture, Psalm, Christian testament, gospel), we teach, we proclaim our faith, we pray, we intercess for others, we give alms and offerings, we celebrate our oneness in the Eucharistic meal.WE do not have the mind of Christ if we are all doing different things in worship,have differnt ways of a person entering the church,etc. -- That is called confusion and God is not the author of confusion (1Cor.14:33).
We don't all enter the Church in different ways. We all confess faith in Christ and are baptized.
I'm confused, yes. But I'm confused as to what differences you're referring to?