Posted on 05/09/2007 10:10:07 AM PDT by stfassisi
Never, ever trust anyone who wants to keep information out of your hands. Doubly so for the word of God.
You choose to ignore that part!
“You choose to ignore that part!”
No, they died for a person, not a tradition.
Jesus did not come to give us a BOOK ONLY!(The Bible)
He came to fulfill the Prophecies thus fulfilling the Sacraments so that we can Live life abundantly.
ALL the Early Christians saw this!
Good Night ,Dear Brother, my patience is running thinner then I wish with you
Is there some Christian religious beliefs and practices that Unitarians oppose? I thought they were ok with even non-Christian ones.
Or have I confused this with a Unitarian Universalism?
In other words, quit asking sensible questions...Just shut up and do as we say...
No thanks...
Of course the inconsisties of practice and form in various RC Churches and Theologians throughout history i-s * n-o-t * r-e-a-l-l-y * i-n-c-o-n-s-i-s-t-y?????? (When properly explained).
Actually, you are generally correct in your assumption.
I was making reference to the fact that some Unitarians and some Unitarian congregations do not fit the accepted definition of "Christian".
Thanks for your reply.
So, on this issue: sola scriptura in essence, would your church’s teaching be: Yes, No or Maybe?
Unitarian Universilism has no Creed, no Dogma, no hierarchy. In short each congregation is unique in it's own right.
Augustine phrases it rather well:
What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostles? FOR HOLY SCRIPTURE FIXES THE RULE FOR OUR DOCTRINE, LEST WE DARE BE WISER THAN WE OUGHT. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher. -- Augustine, De Bono Viduitatis.
One has to look at the high degree of uniformity also. There’s an actual norm to deviate from. How markedly, for instance, does the outline of a church service given by Justin Martyr deviate from that of an old fashioned low mass? Or the emphasis on the Eucharist How much the emphasis on the controlling office of the bishops and priests? There exists an orthodoxy and an orthopraxis whose main lines can be traced to the start. To be fair, there IS a certainly consistency among the evangelicals. By and large a modern presbyterian service is like the one worked out by John Calvin. A difference is that Calvin actually prepared a service which, like that of Luther, was basically a variation of the Mass, like him omiting the “tone” of sacrificial offering., and giving due weight to the ritual of “ the breaking of the bread”. the Eucharistic feast that is the height of the mass. The modern protestant service—except for the Luthers and the Episcopalians—is really HALF of what Calvin intended to be celebrated EACH Sunday: Songs, Scripture Reading, and preaching. Interesting to me that Calvin would have preferred that Communion also be celebrated each Sunday, and we know that he neither had misgivings about what Cranmer was doing in England and was perfectly willing to let the bishops continue in an evangelical Polish Church. But Calvin was basically overruled by the radical anti-clericals of his church who wished to abolish any hint of a sacerdotal priesthood. As for doctrine, it must be admitted that they have stuck to three Lutheran dogmas: the priesthood of all believers, Sola Scriptura, and Justification by Faith. The difference is that beginning with pragmatists like Wesley they have gradually abandoned any efforts of do theology, which some of them seem to despise.
From my reading, it is not so much prelates and councils of the Church who have shown so much variety but the theologians. The Evangelicals, therefore seem to think that theology itself is a misbegotten enterprise. Ironically. in the Catholic Church, theologians often seem to be asserting that THEY, not the bisops, have the right to say what is the faith. I must say that, so far as comfort is concerned, I do feel more at ease with Barth than I do with Rahner.
It puzzles me, however, that I find that few modern Evangelicals seems to have read Barth. Too many of them exhibit the radical ideism that Pope Beneedict criticized the Muslims for. But I think for most of them it is that they know that it is hard to argument against personal testimony while theology invites argument.
The Church Jesus spoke of in Matthew cannot be divided in doctrine. Anyone who disagrees with that clearly disagrees with the spirit of the Scripture in Matthew. Thus, to propose an "invisible church" as many (including yourself) do, one must demonstrate that ALL Protestant denominations are unified in doctrine, and thus, if one can show that at least TWO are different, then the Protestant argument falls apart. (Which I did show at least two were different, and thus your argument does fail, whether you want to admit it or not)
The number of "a million Protestant denominations" or "30000 denominations" doesn't matter for the main argument (the "invisible church" is NOT unified in doctrine) to be true. The argument is true, thus there can be no unified "invisible church", or, Matthew is false.
As an aside, it really depends on how one defines "denomination". It can be said quite reasonably that there are 30,000 Protestant denominations, if one defines "Protestant denomination" simply as a Christian denomination that denies Transubstaintiation and the authority of the Holy See. That's just one example.
Even if one takes the narrow definition that you seem to, one is STILL left with at least TWO on the list you linked to, that are clearly different in doctrine. Or are you going to tell me NONE of the denominations listed on my list were Christian denominations?
We've had this discussion before, and you never faced the ultimate point I made. I suspect once again, you will ignore the obvioius implications of my argument, and simply point out discrepencies in the definition of "denomination", a SEMANTIC argument that's not worth my time.
Except this one: "There shall be no Creed, no Dogma, no hierarchy."
Actually, I refused to continue that discussion because the list you provided (not to mention the argument itself, and the methodology used to create both) was so laughably bad and so fraught with error, that I decided it just wasn't worth my time trying to help you salvage a legitimate and viable argument out of it, just so you could hurl it anew at me. I much prefer the Nerf-tipped spears that you're currently using.
Ok, well putting aside your ad hominems, you are now admitting that there are at least 2 denominations on my list that are clearly Protestant, and yet doctrinally different right?
Or not? If not, then explain how 2 denominations on my list are the same, doctrinally speaking.
Or, say that none on my list are Protestant, or only one, and then I’ll laugh at you. :) You see, whether you realize it or not, you are in a catch 22 of your own construction. Either you must admit that at least 2 of the denominations on my list are Protestant, and therefore admit that this “invisible church” is nonsense, or, you must deny that there are at least 2 Protestant denominations on the list, and therefore, demonstrate an ignorance of historical Protestantism on your part.
Of course, you have a third option, and claim that my argument is weak (as you just did) which I suppose would make YOURSELF feel better, but trust me, it doesn’t make you look like a winner to any rational lurker.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
I think you mean the spirit of the Scripture in Matthew as interpreted by your denomination.
This is such a red herring for so many reasons.
1) The RCC is certainly not united in its doctrine among its practitioners, no matter what it would like us to believe.
2) The RCC changes its doctrines to suit the times and temperament of its magisterial class of law-givers.
3) Life is long and God has given us interesting paths to walk before we eventually know Him as optimally as possible. But our first premise must always be that the Holy Spirit is leading our walk. Some of us go through terrible trials; some of us go through life relatively unscathed; some of us are born into believing households and some of us must find our way alone. Yet as children of God who have been redeemed by Jesus Christ on the cross, all Christians should, by definition, be assured their walk will bring glory to God and eventually lead them home.
This walk includes a variety of experiences and lessons. As we are sanctified by the Holy Spirit, we are quickened ever more to the clarity of Scripture which contains all truth worth knowing -- the truth of our justification before God by Jesus Christ alone; the truth that there is only One Mediator between men and God, Jesus Christ; the truth that our sins were paid-in-full by Christ's perfect, one-time atonement at Calvary; the truth that He who rose from the cross is God; and the truth that we are not to fall down to the stock of a tree.
4) As our life progresses, we are confident He will lead us from darkness to the light -- every step ordained by God, every step from bondage to liberty, every step further from the conceits of men and magisteriums to the truth of our accomplished redemption in Christ. Some redeemed are among the RCC, but no doubt they will eventually understand their salvation is not by sacrament or incantation or other men's pronouncements, but by the singular sacrifice of Christ alone.
And then, God willing, a variety of Bible-based Protestant denominations will be waiting to welcome them into the ever-increasing light.
As God wills.
Very beautiful - thank you
......Ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.