What constitutes a Christian denomination?

[JonathanL]

I have a problem with that. Isn't that what this argument is largely about?

You might have a problem with it, but I don't.

People are asserting that group X cannot be Christian because its members don't follow a Y, where Y is "my version of Christianity" or Y is "anyone who doesn't follow a vegetarian lifestyle is in a state of damnation"?

Which makes it a question of which of these claims are correct (if any of them are correct) and not a question of how to get people with deeply non-reconcilable teachings to sing kumbayah with eachother.

What if, according to the Bible, anyone who does not follow a vegetarian lifestyle is in a state of damnation?

I'm quite confident in my belief that the Bible says nothing of the sort, but if it did l would have to rethink my position on what defines a Christian.

[rwatts]

I'm quite confident in my belief that the Bible says nothing of the sort, but if it did l would have to rethink my position on what defines a Christian.

That is my point. AFAICT, everyone who claims to be Christian, including those you reject as being Christian, claims to follow the Bible. It was my experience on meeting the Christadelphians.

They got all of their arguments about Methodists, Baptists etc. being heretics and on their way to hell, from the Bible. I got all my arguments about them being the heretic and on their way to hell, from the Bible.

[JonathanL]

ETA
And they way I see it, everyone who claims to be Christian also claims to follow the Bible.

I don't think you're telling us anything particularly surprising or revealing there.

[rwatts]

I don't think you're telling us anything particularly surprising or revealing there.

Then see the post I put up after that where I explain it more fully:-

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post163986

[JonathanL]

That is my point. AFAICT, everyone who claims to be Christian, including those you reject as being Christian, claims to follow the Bible. It was my experience on meeting the Christadelphians.

Of course everyone who claims to be Christian also claims to follow the Bible. That's quite obvious and to be frank, isn't much of a point at all.

They got all of their arguments about Methodists, Baptists etc. being heretics and on their way to hell, from the Bible. I got all my arguments about them being the heretic and on their way to hell, from the Bible.

And either one, or both of you were simply wrong on this issue, it really isn't much more complicated than that.

[rwatts]

And either one, or both of you were simply wrong on this issue, it really isn't much more complicated than that.

How were one or both of us wrong on that issue, given that you were not there?

And I think it is a point, given that so many folk use the Bible to define who is, and who is not a Christian.

[JonathanL]

Why were one or both of us wrong on that issue, given that you were not there?

Well, I guess you could both have been correct, and you were both going to hell, but that was not really my point. My point is that the Bible really does have something to say about whether or not someone is damned, and how to get out of that state of damnation, and that there really is a correct interpretation of the relevant parts of the Bible. So when someone points out that group X thinks group Y is going to hell based on something they read in the bible, while group Y thinks the same of group X my initial reaction would be to ask, "are any of these groups interpretations of the Bible correct?", it would not be to throw my hands up in desperation and conclude that it's impossible to tell one way or the other.

[rwatts]

Well, I guess you could both have been correct, and you were both going to hell, but that was not really my point.

Why only hell? Why not heaven?

My point is that the Bible really does have something to say about whether or not someone is damned, and how to get out of that state of damnation, and that there really is a correct interpretation of the relevant parts of the Bible. So when someone points out that group X thinks group Y is going to hell based on something they read in the bible, while group Y thinks the same of group X my initial reaction would be to ask, "are any of these groups interpretations of the Bible correct?", it would not be to throw my hands up in desperation and conclude that it's impossible to tell one way or the other.

Is Fred interpreting the Bible correctly is something that can be asked of all denominations, sects and individuals.

At days end, I fail to see how any denomination, sect or individual could survive, thinking "We are Christian because believe this even though we don't think it's Biblically based".

Sure my experience is very limited, but I've yet to meet a person claiming to be a Christian who does not see the Bible as an authority, defining her/his Christianity.

[JonathanL]

Why only hell? Why not heaven?

Because I was referring to when you wrote:

"They got all of their arguments about Methodists, Baptists etc. being heretics and on their way to hell, from the Bible. I got all my arguments about them being the heretic and on their way to hell, from the Bible."

I don't see how you could both have been correct about thinking the other was on their way to hell, while simultaneously being on their way to heaven. That would be quite the contradiction.

Is Fred interpreting the Bible correctly is something that can be asked of all denominations, sects and individuals.

Sure is.

At days end, I fail to see how any denomination, sect or individual could survive, thinking "We believe this even though we don't think it's Biblically based".

As I already said, that's quite obvious. My counter-point is simply that there really exists a correct interpretation of the Bible, and that all other interpretations are incorrect. And it isn't inconceivable at all to imagine that some people really have found the correct interpretation, while others are simply wrong about what they believe the Bible teaches.

[Cow Poke]

It's quite funny, but I just noticed that I tend to overuse this guy () quite a lot.

[rwatts]

Because I was referring to when you wrote:

"They got all of their arguments about Methodists, Baptists etc. being heretics and on their way to hell, from the Bible. I got all my arguments about them being the heretic and on their way to hell, from the Bible."

O.k.

I think elsewhere I had written that we each saw the other as on their way to hell and ourselves as on our way to heaven.

As I already said, that's quite obvious. My counter-point is simply that there really exists a correct interpretation of the Bible, and that all other interpretations are incorrect. And it isn't inconceivable at all to imagine that some people really have found the correct interpretation, while others are simply wrong about what they believe the Bible teaches.

Indeed. There is a correct interpretation. And maybe no one has it.

Nevertheless, at day's end, people use the Bible to define and defend their own ideas as to what a Christian actually is. And the all seem to think they have the correct/best interpretation. Each could use your - "there really exists a correct interpretation of the Bible, and that all other interpretations are incorrect. And it isn't inconceivable at all to imagine that some people really have found the correct interpretation, while others are simply wrong about what they believe the Bible teaches" - argument as supporting their own Christianity.

[JonathanL]

Indeed. There is a correct interpretation. And maybe no one has it.

And maybe someone does.

Nevertheless, at day's end, people use the Bible to define and defend their own ideas as to what a Christian actually is. And the all seem to think they have the correct/best interpretation. Each could use your - "there really exists a correct interpretation of the Bible, and that all other interpretations are incorrect. And it isn't inconceivable at all to imagine that some people really have found the correct interpretation, while others are simply wrong about what they believe the Bible teaches" - argument as supporting their own Christianity.

No they couldn't because it isn't an argument trying to support any particular view of Christianity, it was simply an argument that given the assumption that the Bible is true it is worth it trying to spend the effort researching which interpretation of the Bible makes the most sense and which ones do not.

[rogue06]

[Cow Poke]

[Cerealman]

IF that were true.



There's a whole bunch of us that focus on the essentials, and don't worry about the non-essentials.

Why do I only see the whole other denominations hate denomination A/B only on the internet?