Posted on 11/11/2006 8:16:16 AM PST by annalex
I think you've come down with an acute figure of speech.
You might note that few of the great masses of people could read. How many of the 5000 that heard Jesus in the wilderness, which he fed with the bread (not counting the women and children), do you figure could read.
Nowadays it's quite different. The words of Jesus Himself are available to the people, and they read about His promises and teachings, which are for them, who have souls and who can be filled with the Spirit.
So on issues on which they disagree, they are both right?
Cronos, there is a little bit more to that. For one, +Augustine's "original sin" theory which was unknown and never officially accepted by the entire Church until after the Schism. That concept is directly related to our dogmatic difference in not just how but why the Blessed Ever-Virgin Theotokos remained immaculate.
The filioque is more than a linguistic issue. The papal supremacy, although of itself not a theological issue, is a serious one that was brewing from the 4th century onward.
These issues are difficult but not insurmountable. The problem the Church will have to deal with is to show that neither side was wrong on any of them. Once you move beyond individual Father's opinions and adopt them as dogma, if you move beyond what the Seven Councils declared, and add almost twice as many of them to one side of the Church, insisting they are ecumenical, it becomes a lot more difficult to reconcile.
I have no disagreement with your statement other than the fact that both Islam and Protestantism are man-made churches. Like with Islam, their beginning is with a man. Protestants believe the Church was in apostasy for 1,500 years (Luther actually wanted only to reform some corrupt practices of individual clerics, and that grew into a whole new theology, new biblical canon, AND a man-made church)
Mainstream Protestants are Trinitarian Christians and, as such, our brothers. There is no comparison between them and ishamelite heretics as far as their beliefs are concerned.
But, the Pope is more than just first in honor. The Bishop of Rome was from the earliest days (I won't say from the the beginning) the pre-eminent bishop in the Church, the presiding bishop, the "elder" bishop, but not a "supreme priest" (pontifex maximus), a pagan title +Leo arrogated to himself; nor was he the ruler of the Church although the papal legates liked to use that term.
The Orthodox, of course, recognize the Pope's right to primacy in honor, but reject the biblical interpretation of his supremacy, his title as the Vicar of Christ (also arrogated by a pope in the 5th century based on one of Syrian Father's opinion in the 4th century), "Prince of the Apostles," etc. as human innovations and titles and powers never bestowed by an Ecumenical Council.
Petrine supremacy is equating uninspired bishops of the city of Old Rome to the inspired Apostle, by virtue of his office alone. No other patriarch does that, although they all can trace their roots to one of the Apostles. Thus, when the bishop of Constantinople speaks, no one says "John spoke." No Eastern bishop lives under the illusion that his office entails the same qualities his apostolic predecessor possessed. But when the Pope speaks, they say "Peter spoke." Rubbish! It amounts to a personality cult.
His supreme authority as a bishop above all bishops is clearly stated in Roman Catholic Catechism: "the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered" [paragraph 882], and "The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, 'supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls'" [paragraph 937].
I can assure you that this is not the understanding the Church had in the first millennium. It is almost impossible for this to be rescinded, even if ignored, removed, reworded, etc. without in some way admitting it is wrong. And without such recension no unity will ever be possible.
Why don't you take that up with the translators of the New Testament. The word used "ethnos" (eqnoV) means a large gathering of individuals, a tribe, or a nation (just as American native tribes are considered nations).
The NT says "make disciples of all the nations." I take it that you are correcting the Lord. Good luck!
You might note that few of the great masses of people could read
I have news for you: we still have large numbers of functionally illiterate people with poor reading comprehension skills. The illiteracy in the world is not negligible. Likewise, outside of the prosperous dozen or so developed countries, bibles are not as readily available and affordable to vast multitudes of people 2,000 years after our Lord instructed his newly appointed Church elders to teach the masses what he had taught the Apostles.
So, if the Bible was not written for the masses, obviously it wasn't intended for the masses to interpret it either. Those who subscribe to "each man his own pope" Protestant motto attest to the fragility of such endeavors by the fact that new "denominations" are being formed as "true" churches of Christ ever day, now numbering in tens of thousands and continually atomizing.
Why? Because there are as many opinions as there are individuals. The Faith once delivered by the Lord is not a matter of one's personal opinion or, God forbid, subject to logic or rationalizations.
Clearly, the Lord never intended the nations of believers to read the Bible and teach themselves. There is no biblical reference to "sola scriptura" heresy. It's a man-made tradition of Luther.
There is, indeed, one man - Jesus.
By your logic, one could argue that Roman Catholics see Peter as the founder of Roman Catholicism -- is the Pope not heir to the "Throne of Peter?"
Terabitten: There is, indeed, one man - Jesus
Christ did not establish a sect, but His Church, and He left it to the Apostles and their successors to baptize all nations in the name (of each Person) of the Holy Trinity, and to teach them everything He taught. [Mat 28:19]
Christian Church starts with our Lord, Jesus Christ, on the Pentecost, in the year 33 A.D. Islam is established in the 6th century by a man called Mohammad. Protestant church is born 1,000 years later by a man called Luther. I think the difference is glaringly obvious.
By your logic, one could argue that Roman Catholics see Peter as the founder of Roman Catholicism
Nonsense. Saint Peter is not the founder of Roman Catholicism. The Pope is a successor to +Peter's office as the Bishop of Rome. Luther is a successor to no one's office. His church came out of his mind and his movement. He is the founder of Protestantism, just as Mohammad is the founder of Islam.
I agree there's a lot more, but what I meant by "They stopped talking and misunderstanding grew over the centuries, causing the wide schism, which is now being bridged" reflects the fact that the two sides just stopped talking, no councils to discuss theological matters or anything. So, any issues of dispute were never discussed with BOTH sides to arrive at a conclusion, and they just lasted.
But the people who would seek the Kingdom do read the Bible and do understand it, and the teachings of Jesus were to individuals, about individuals and for individuals. I pointed out the two main teachings a few posts ago.
You do not make a disciples of a nation. If it were true that you could, then making disciples of the officials (individuals) would bind all people in that nation.
Malarkey.
Those who are illiterate today have the Gospels read to them, and hearing, they understand, if they are of that heart. The more, especially in the greater nations, read it themselves. It is up to the individual that he seeks God or not, not to a corporate organization.
This is the stone upon which those churches who claim dominance are broken.
There are indeed as many opinions as there are people but there is only one opinion in the Gospels and it is clear; the authority for the salvation for each man is the responsibility of that man. The only men that pledge their souls to the church are those who refuse that responsibility, and reasonably enough, it is those people and peoples that would let a despotic tyranny to persist in their nation.
All churches are man made, man run and for the purpose of man. The Catholic church is no different, even though it try mightily to impress interpretation on the scriptures to rule over men.
America was founded against the divine right of kings. The notion that the Israelite Davidic royal line was passed to non-Israelites is foolish, and is only found as an impressed interpretation on one passage in one Gospel. The other Gospels are different.
It would have been better if there were some twistable passage that passed the royal line to Paul, since Paul brought the Gospels to the non-Israelites. But there wasn't was there? The church had to make do with Peter thereby causing a scriptural crisis.
The notion that the Catholic, or any, church is the gatekeeper of spiritual salvation itself causes a scriptural crisis.
The only way the church has been able to pass it over was because it taught to ignorant people and babies that believe anything you tell them, unable to read and think for themselves.
The impulse to rule is the foundation of evil in all of history because it is the leadership of people or nation that cause evil to come upon the people. God gave the Israelites over to kings because that is what the people wanted and He would show them the nature of rule by men.
The Catholic church is the legacy of that impulse. But it is fading. The church, being the leader of the unthinking and slavishly accepting man, is the giving way to the thinking man.
You can cite your traditions and clumsily interpreted scripture all you like, but the die is cast.
You can argue with me all you want to, but the scriptures are crystal clear.
I agree. I just wanted to make sure others who read this understand that this was not the only issue.
Needless to say, continuous talk and refinement is a must and it will hopefully continue until full communion.
Fantasy. He taught mostly to the Apostles. To others He spoke in parables.
You do not make a disciples of a nation
"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" [Mat 28:19, NAB]
The Greek original uses the verb maqetusate from maqeteuo (to be a disciple of, to make a disciple, to follow one's teaching). The verb is also in Aorist (future tense).
You are clearly saying the Bible is not saying what it is clearly saying.
Those who are illiterate today have the Gospels read to them, and hearing, they understand, if they are of that heart
If Christ wanted everyone to read the Bible and interpret it as they please He would have made that happen. Instead, He clearly chose not to, but to commission His Apostles to teach others. It was not a Jewish practice to read the Bible and, being a pious Jew, Jesus would have never said otherwise. Sola scriptura is simply not scriptural. Period. It is a Lutheran invention.
This is the stone upon which those churches who claim dominance are broken
Hardly. The only breaking is in the Protestant world where the never-ending search for the "true church" results in ever-increasing "denominations" (somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-plus thousand known ones to this date).
There are indeed as many opinions as there are people but there is only one opinion in the Gospels and it is clear
Not in the Protestant world.
the authority for the salvation for each man is the responsibility of that man
No man has authority to save himself. You do have options. But salvation comes only from God.
The church had to make do with Peter thereby causing a scriptural crisis
LOL!
The notion that the Catholic, or any, church is the gatekeeper of spiritual salvation itself causes a scriptural crisis
LOL!
The only way the church has been able to pass it over was because it taught to ignorant people and babies that believe anything you tell them, unable to read and think for themselves
LOL!
The church, being the leader of the unthinking and slavishly accepting man, is the giving way to the thinking man
Yes, that's obvious, where "thinking man" is the final arbiter of what is God's and what is not, by virtue of reason. Yup, mankind will figure everything out, even God. No lack of pride and arrogance there in our "supreme" ability to understand and know everything and all by creating rationalism as a form of religion.
You can cite your traditions and clumsily interpreted scripture all you like, but the die is cast
This is hysterical!
You can argue with me all you want to, but the scriptures are crystal clear
Sometimes. IN the case of making all nations the disciples of Christ, it is crystal clear indeed. I wish you would see it too.
EC: Each Christian has the need to read Holy Scripture, yet each Christian does not also have the authority or ability to teach and interpret the words of Scripture. This privileged authority is reserved for the Church via its holy clergy and theologians, men who are instructed in and knowledgeable of the true faith.
(1) The premise of the elder's statement flies in the face of John's first letter.
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
-- 1 John 2:27 (KJV)
AND... New Living Translation:
But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don’t need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you all things, and what he teaches is true - it is not a lie. So continue in what he has taught you, and continue to live in Christ.
--1 John 2:27 (NLT)
(2) The "true faith" is our personal relationship with the Lord; NOT the propagation of extraordinary religious rites or rituals for the sake of tradition.
The Lord has called us to the waters of baptism and the table of remembrance. The rest of "orthodoxy" should be cautiously approached and carefullyt examined in light of the whole (Biblical) counsel of God.
(Paul is speaking...) For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. --Acts 20:27
The good Elder missed it on this one. Perhaps in his day, the literacy rate and other cultural propensities brought him to this conclusion -- but his conclusions create a great and unintended tension in the expression of Christian faith and the Lord's clearly stated intention for the life and ministry of the Living Body.
Because God's love has drawn our hearts through Christ; Through to a great commitment to the Great Commandment, we can enthusiastically embrace the Great Commission.
It would indeed be boring here if we didn't have a steady supply of (out-of-context) textproofing.
Of course, here +John also says that he wrote this because of the people who wish to deceive the believers, so he is giving them advice not to believe the deceivers. This puts a somewhat different spin on things. The New Testament is otherwise full of refrences for the believers to hold on to the teachings and traditions of the Church elders.
Bible quotes are dime a dozen if taken out of context. If you take John 14:26, it is "clear" that we don't need anything but the Holy Spirit, not even the Bible, to know all things.
Obviously that is not so.
As for privileged authority in the Church, does not +Paul say
Not everyone in the Church can simply open the book and teach himself, just as God designated that women shall bear children and not men. It may not seem, "fair" but life is the way it is even if liberal Protestants don't understand it. :)
Your post #109, unbelievably offensive to me.
"Your post #109, unbelievably offensive to me."
Which part?
John's letter (1 John 2:27 DOESN'T say we do not need leaders and instructors -- It does clearly infer that the final authority for each believer is the indwelling Presence of the Holy Spirit.
God may orchestrate our completed spiritual instruction from many and varied sources -- church leaders, teachers/mentors, counselors, a tape series or DVD -- or a divine appointment on a street corner. But ultimately -- we are disciples of Jesus Christ; each with gifts, ministries and appointments to fulfill the high calling.
Have you ever noticed that the terms "elder" and "deacon" are never capitalized -- and remain much more descriptive terms of character and duties -- more descriptive than they are designations?
This ESPECIALLY includes the doma ministry gifts you have listed from Ephesians 4:11 -- apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teacher...
These are mature spiritual gifts, and the completely configured gifts of the lives of men and women given for the ministries of the Kingdom of God (See Luke 4/Isaiah 61)
They are not inscriptions for anyone's T-shirt:
I am a(n) _______________ (fill-in the blank)
For all the zealous defense of "orthodoxy" and tradition here -- These same apologists seem to constantly:
1. Add to (or take away from...) the canon of Biblical truth,
2. Invent/re-invent more hierarchical religious offices,
3. teaxh and/or endorse un-Biblical (occasionally CLEARLY forbidden!) spiritual practices,... AND...
4. Additional rites, ordnances rituals and traditions that remain a very long way from and sound foundation in the simple Scriptural premises of the New Covenenant.
All of which begs the original question:
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
-- John 14:9 (KJV)
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
--John 17:3 (KJV)
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matthew 7:22-23 (KJV)
Just food for thought....
I believe the Bible teaches us that knowing God.... is the whole point.
Not know = gnosis (Strong's G1108) = "head knowledge" or intellect...
BUT...
Know = ginosko (Strong's G1097) = the intimate embrace; knowing/perceiving... and being known.
If you ask our heavenly Father for a Father's hug...
...and remain quietly trusting.......
Blessings...
So many of your positions are approaching the absurd....
First -- nowhere in Biblical Scripture is the word "church" capitalized. The original ekklesia (Strong's G1577) infers those gathered in like mind and heart more than a formal organization or gathering.
The church is a living organism -- the Body of Christ -- so much, much more than a religious organization.
All disciples of Christ are part of the Body of Christ....
If that excludes some from your "organization", well so be it.
There are many who will be shouting "Lord, Lord..."
And our Master will say to those very religious folks: "Go away - I never KNEW you"
For someone who constantly makes snide remarks and sneers at sincere followers of Christ concerning the use of "your Christian Bible" -- I suggest you read it from cover to cover.
I also strongly suggest you repent of your arrogant but ignorant religiosity -- and seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness --
Thence to see if at least your perspective towards your kindred in the Lord -- if not your entire life of faith -- might change.
I think you know. Comparing Protestants to Islam of course. I know you will say you didn't, but clearly that is the impression. Many who you call protestants do not claim to be saying they did not come from the Catholic Church. I do not believe that it is the first and only Church, but that it is one of the Churches of the Lord. But I would never compare your belief to Islam.
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.