I have a question
Bobdi...@aol.com
>>[The book of Job] certainly did not and does not belong in the bible,
Christian and Jewish both to make it worse.
well, there you have it. Rip that Scripture right outta there. oh, bsh, any
other Scripture not comport with your thinking? I mean, while we're at it,
let's just knock out all the other stuff that doesn't fit your theology. I
mean, after all, if there's one thing we can't have, it is an understanding of
God that makes us uncomfortable! :-D
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( See http://www.mcs.net/~sadams/bible.html for details about this group. )))
Stephen Bayzik
>well, there you have it. Rip that Scripture right outta there. oh, bsh, any
>other Scripture not comport with your thinking? I mean, while we're at it,
>let's just knock out all the other stuff that doesn't fit your theology. I
>mean, after all, if there's one thing we can't have, it is an understanding of
>God that makes us uncomfortable! :-D
How about my infamous statement again; it is unfortunate that
Scripture is available to the common man for self instruction.
Everybody wants to be his own judge with private lines to Gawd. :-)
Vance McAlister
Stephen Bayzik wrote in message <6uljdp$12m$1...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>...
>How about my infamous statement again; it is unfortunate that
>Scripture is available to the common man for self instruction.
>Everybody wants to be his own judge with private lines to Gawd. :-)
Are we all not common men? Or, more importantly, who among us is more
"common" than the average Apostle? Our entire religion is based upon the
interpretation of Jesus' teaching by very common men, indeed.
Bobdi...@aol.com
>>How about my infamous statement again; it is unfortunate that
Scripture is available to the common man for self instruction.
I take some satisfaction in the fact that bayzie at least ACKNOWLEDGES that
his statement was "infamous". Perhaps someday he'll go a bit further. ;)
Stephen Bayzik
<v.mca...@ejgd.net> wrote:
>Stephen Bayzik wrote in message <6uljdp$12m$1...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>...
>>How about my infamous statement again; it is unfortunate that
>>Scripture is available to the common man for self instruction.
>>Everybody wants to be his own judge with private lines to Gawd. :-)
>Are we all not common men? Or, more importantly, who among us is more
>"common" than the average Apostle? Our entire religion is based upon the
>interpretation of Jesus' teaching by very common men, indeed.
Vance, there is much merit to what you say. However, you can't sustain
a religion without a "judge", and you can't have 1.5 billion "judges".
You can't even have a "court" with a substructure of jurisprudence.
All men **should ** be of equal value; but not all are born, or have
obtained a degree of discernment to be a "judge". And the judge (or
judges) in any time of place are defacto flesh and blood individuals,
who must judge looking on the shoulders of men of the past.
Some men are teachers, some are analysts, some leaders, while most are
just followers.
None of us has a "direct phone line" to God, or, if you wish, to the
Holy Spirit. None of us are islands, and we all depend upon those who
have gone before us to phantom the "will of God".
Vance McAlister
Stephen Bayzik wrote in message <6utgh0$357$1...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>...
>On 28 Sep 1998 23:16:58 -0500, "Vance McAlister"
><v.mca...@ejgd.net> wrote:
>
>>Stephen Bayzik wrote in message <6uljdp$12m$1...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>...
>
>>>How about my infamous statement again; it is unfortunate that
>>>Scripture is available to the common man for self instruction.
>>>Everybody wants to be his own judge with private lines to Gawd. :-)
>
>>Are we all not common men? Or, more importantly, who among us is more
>>"common" than the average Apostle? Our entire religion is based upon the
>>interpretation of Jesus' teaching by very common men, indeed.
>
>Vance, there is much merit to what you say. However, you can't sustain
>a religion without a "judge", and you can't have 1.5 billion "judges".
>You can't even have a "court" with a substructure of jurisprudence.
>
>All men **should ** be of equal value; but not all are born, or have
>obtained a degree of discernment to be a "judge". And the judge (or
>judges) in any time of place are defacto flesh and blood individuals,
>who must judge looking on the shoulders of men of the past.
>
>Some men are teachers, some are analysts, some leaders, while most are
>just followers.
I have to agree with you that not all are designed to be teachers of the
Word (the gift of knowledge or wisdom?), and that there must be a leadership
structure if we are to have an organization. I am struggling with the
concept of whether the plan was ever to have such an organization. I know
it was Paul's plan, but was it in Jesus' ideology? Of course, he never had
to address the issue. Also, how else could we spread the Word without some
organization. So I see the point, but the problem still remains that we
have men telling other men what the scripture means and what scripture is
correct in the first place. On top of that, we have different men telling
us very different things. The fact that no cohesive body of thought exists
after all these years makes it difficult to accept any one view as wholly
"of God". Each group feels very strongly about its approach and often
believe that those who don't follow them are going to Hell.
We can't even come up with a "basic" Christianity that is a common
denominator among all who honestly see themselves as Christian. It has been
tried and, unless you want to go with Majority Rules, you will have trouble.
You say we must have teachers (probably correct), but the teachers all
disagree! And on basic, essential points! It may be that one group or the
other is correct, but which? While most simply punt on the issue and
accept the group that they grew up in or that converts them first, this
will not work for the thinking man. I can not just roll the dice and hope
to chose the correct teaching to follow. I must search for myself, with the
Spirit's guidance, among these teachings. I will still be learning from the
collected wisdom (or lack of it) of those who have gone before, but since
they are the teachings of mere men, I must view them objectively. Do they
hang together logically? Do they seem justifications of previously held
conceptions? How do they compare to Jesus' original teachings? Hopefully
the Spirit will aid in this process. What else can I do? In the meantime,
I am part of an established church, gaining knowledge and insight and
fellowship.
>None of us has a "direct phone line" to God, or, if you wish, to the
>Holy Spirit. None of us are islands, and we all depend upon those who
>have gone before us to phantom the "will of God".
I thought that the Spirit was indeed sent to each one of us, or do you hold
that it was just sent to the Church as a whole. If it was sent to each one
of us, then for what other purpose than to guide us individually?
Mary L Groff
You are correct. If you are born again (born of the Spirit of God) then
the Holy Spirit is your personal guide and teacher. The body of Christ
(Christ's church) is the Holy Spirit and is made up of sons of God that
have the Holy Spirit residing in them. The Holy Spirit which is the
Spirit of Christ does guide and teach His church which is made up of many
members. Members who have His nature - the nature of God.
Also, the organization you refer to in Christ's church is His
government. Christ (the Word) calls it: Apostolic order. He gave gifts
and structure onto us and we are commanded to abide by His order, or
government. We see this all through the NT. Stay in your fellowship, be
led by the Holy Spirit and those He has placed in positions of
leadership. If they preach any other gospel then that which the Spirit
in you does not bear witness, then get out and let Him lead you to a
church (fellowship) where you can be raised up in the mind of Christ and
strengthened so that you too can be a part of the perfecting of the
saints in God's government which is: apostles, evangelists, pastors,
teachers, prophets etc. for the perfecting and the equiping of Christ's
church - His people.
God bless,
Mary
Vance McAlister (v.mca...@ejgd.net) wrote:
: Stephen Bayzik wrote in message <6utgh0$357$1...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>...
--
Email Address at home: a053...@bc.seflin.org
Email Address at work: st...@lifesavers.org
Mary L Groff
from Jesus!! Read Ephesians 4:4-13 Not only do we see ONE BAPTISM (which
is the baptism of the Holy Spirit), but we see in verse 10-11 that Christ
gave us His order or plan for HIS church. It is His government on earth
inside the Kingdom of God. Verse 11 states the order and verse 12 gives
us the reason for the order. For the perfecting of the saints, for the
work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. That order
which some calls Apostolic order is: apostles, teachers, prophets,
evangelists, pastors, teachers. Other scriptures include gifts of helps,
governments, administrations etc. The first grouping is considered the
5-fold ministry of Christ's government in the earth. That government is
only inside of the true church - which is the body of Christ. The body of
Christ is now the Holy Spirit made up of many parts, members who are
filled with the Holy Spirit. If they do not have the Holy Spirit
indwelling, then they are not a part of the body of Christ which is the
church.
Many claim to be christians and saved. Many may even be seeking to be
saved and receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but if they have not
been transformed into a new creature in Christ, there is no possible way
to be a part of the body of Christ. They may be sitting in the church,
but still not a member of the body of Christ.
God bless,
Starr
Vance McAlister
Mary L Groff wrote in message <6vbbg2$kn7$1...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>...
>Vance, I did want to add that "yes", the organizational structure did come
>from Jesus!! Read Ephesians 4:4-13 Not only do we see ONE BAPTISM (which
>is the baptism of the Holy Spirit), but we see in verse 10-11 that Christ
>gave us His order or plan for HIS church. It is His government on earth
>inside the Kingdom of God. Verse 11 states the order and verse 12 gives
>us the reason for the order. For the perfecting of the saints, for the
>work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. That order
>which some calls Apostolic order is: apostles, teachers, prophets,
>evangelists, pastors, teachers. Other scriptures include gifts of helps,
>governments, administrations etc. The first grouping is considered the
>5-fold ministry of Christ's government in the earth. That government is
>only inside of the true church - which is the body of Christ. The body of
>Christ is now the Holy Spirit made up of many parts, members who are
>filled with the Holy Spirit. If they do not have the Holy Spirit
>indwelling, then they are not a part of the body of Christ which is the
>church.
Thank you for your thoughtful and considerate posts. Its nice to see a
little less invective in these discussions. As to your points, I tend to
agree in general terms with the concept of the need for an organization, and
may even agree that the plan set out by Paul may be appropriate (I am not a
fundamentalist). However, the problem still remains that I can not put my
spiritual future in the hands of a spiritual leader blindly. Christianity
is not as homogeneous as one would like to think. Its not as if there was
one set of Christian beliefs that all agree upon and I can simply accept
that teaching as the collected wisdom of our forefathers. This would be a
perfect world. Instead, there is a variety of teachings and great
divisiveness over critical issues. Since not all of these can be correct it
can only follow that some major teachings, believed by multitudes, are just
plain wrong. Yet all of the proponents of these teachings are obviously
spiritual leaders in the structure of the Church!
So, if some of these Church doctrines, and the leaders who teach them,
are on the right path and some are going in the wrong direction, how I can
randomly choose one and blindly follow that lead? My only point is that I
can't do this and must delve into these mysteries myself, with the Spirit's
guidance and the intellect God gave me (and gave all of us for a reason).
In the meantime, I do belong to a Church for fellowship and worship. Yet I
must search for Truth. Some have said that I open myself up to the danger
of false teaching by not relying of _their_ groups teachings. Yet I am
confident that I am less likely to be led astray by a false teaching if I am
personally and independently grounded.
Alexander R Pruss
: So, if some of these Church doctrines, and the leaders who teach them,
: are on the right path and some are going in the wrong direction, how I can
: randomly choose one and blindly follow that lead?
Well, you can ask yourself questions like: Does the particular church go
back to the time of the Apostles? Does it have an unbroken continuity of
doctrine throughout history? Etc. If there is a Church that can be
trusted, then of course the answer to both questions will be YES. And,
I submit, only the Catholic and Orthodox Churches can make a claim to
"yes" answers with any plausibility. (And as a Catholic, I will take it
that in the end the Catholic Church will prove to be able to say "yes"
to both.)
Alex
--
Alexander R. Pruss || e-mail: pru...@pitt.edu
Graduate Student || home page: http://www.pitt.edu/~pruss
Department of Philosophy || alternate e-mail address: pr...@member.ams.org
University of Pittsburgh || Erdos number: 4
Pittsburgh, PA 15260 ||
U.S.A. ||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Philosophiam discimus non ut tantum sciamus, sed ut boni efficiamur."
- Paul of Worczyn (1424)
Gary
<6vates$gl0$1...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>...>Vance,
>You are correct. If you are born again (born of the Spirit of God) then
>the Holy Spirit is your personal guide and teacher. The body of Christ
>(Christ's church) is the Holy Spirit and is made up of sons of God that
>have the Holy Spirit residing in them.
Mary, one point I would like to make about your post.
You say, "the body of Christ (Christ's church) is the Holy Spirit."
While I agree that the body of Christ is Christ's church, and that it
is made up of the regenerate, i.e. the "sons of God that have the
Holy Sprit residing in them." I don't see why you say "the body
of Christ IS THE HOLY SPIRIT."
The Holy Spirit is God. See Acts 5. and multitudes of
of other Scriptures. Hence I would not ever say "the church is
the Holy Spirit."
Sincerely, Gary
g...@iag.net, SEE Trinity vs. Heresy
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/3186/
Ro 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
BJWakeland
In article <6vdgjd$5i9$1...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, "Vance McAlister"
<v.mca...@ejgd.net> writes:
> So, if some of these Church doctrines, and the leaders who teach them,
>are on the right path and some are going in the wrong direction, how I can
>randomly choose one and blindly follow that lead? My only point is that I
>can't do this and must delve into these mysteries myself, with the Spirit's
>guidance and the intellect God gave me (and gave all of us for a reason).
>In the meantime, I do belong to a Church for fellowship and worship. Yet I
>must search for Truth. Some have said that I open myself up to the danger
>of false teaching by not relying of _their_ groups teachings. Yet I am
>confident that I am less likely to be led astray by a false teaching if I am
>personally and independently grounded.
>
Excellent thoughts. You can count among those who agree with you such a man
as Roger Williams the famous Baptist minister of early Colonial America who
gave up the cloth and called himself a "seeker."
The answer to your search can be found in James 5: 5.
As for the search for turth, be ready to recognize it wherever it is found.
CTR
Bob
Mary L Groff
: So, if some of these Church doctrines, and the leaders who teach them,
: are on the right path and some are going in the wrong direction, how I can
: randomly choose one and blindly follow that lead? My only point is that I
: can't do this and must delve into these mysteries myself, with the Spirit's
: guidance and the intellect God gave me (and gave all of us for a reason).
: In the meantime, I do belong to a Church for fellowship and worship. Yet I
: must search for Truth. Some have said that I open myself up to the danger
: of false teaching by not relying of _their_ groups teachings. Yet I am
: confident that I am less likely to be led astray by a false teaching if I am
: personally and independently grounded.
Dear Vance,
You are so right. Your guide and master is first and foremost the Lord.
He is the Head of His church and we are to submit to the Holy Spirit as
He leads, guides, corrects us etc. All saints are to search for the truth
and if you trust the Holy Spirit He will never guides you into any sin,
error or false teachings. The Word admonishes us to "study to show
ourselves approved, workmen that will not be ashamed."
When you hear someone say "you must do as we say", or "follow OUR
teachings" etc. then a red flag should go up in order for you to be
cautious. In reality, that red flag is the Holy Spirit who always leads
with Truth and will always back up the Word of God 100%.
God bless,
Mary
Vance McAlister
Alexander R Pruss wrote in message <6vfv53$sfa$1...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>...
>Vance McAlister (v.mca...@ejgd.net) wrote:
>: So, if some of these Church doctrines, and the leaders who teach
them,
>: are on the right path and some are going in the wrong direction, how I
can
>: randomly choose one and blindly follow that lead?
>
>back to the time of the Apostles? Does it have an unbroken continuity of
>doctrine throughout history? Etc. If there is a Church that can be
>trusted, then of course the answer to both questions will be YES. And,
>I submit, only the Catholic and Orthodox Churches can make a claim to
>"yes" answers with any plausibility. (And as a Catholic, I will take it
>that in the end the Catholic Church will prove to be able to say "yes"
>to both.)
This is a very good point and one that has led me start my search with the
earliest teachings of the Church (ie, pre-Pauline). If the teachings of
those who knew Jesus personally and heard his full ministry are available to
us (at least by logical deductions), then I can follow these concepts and
doctrines to see whether the early Churches varied from them dramatically.
Of course, if an early Church descision was not correctly grounded, then the
fact that the Church religiously (pun intended) followed that dogma or
doctrine is not a selling point.
The only problem I am having with the early Church doctrines (first 3
centuries) is that so much seems to be based on the decisions of men,
getting further and further away from those who walked with Jesus. Since I
don't accept their divine inspiration, their doctrines are not conclusive
for me. As you point out, however, those doctrines which show direct
lineage to the Apostles chosen by Jesus to proclaim his message are the
underpinnings to look for. My question would be this: Are the doctrines
and traditions of the Catholic Church based solely on the teachings of the
Apostles or are they also based on the descisions of later councils and
Church leaders, thus not having the direct link you discuss? This is an
honest question, since I am not familiar with the Catholic teachings in
detail. Were the doctrines developed by these early leaders based in some
direct and logical fashion on the teachings of Jesus or the Apostles or are
some of them "new revelations"? This is the direction of my study of the
early Church and I do plan on approaching the subject without a preconcieved
bias for or against any particular denomination.
Mary L Groff
There is an excellent article on the qualifications of a NT church at:
http://www.cnview.com If you have time it would be good to read it and
it is quite interesting. I have no affiliation to this particular
fellowship of believers but their teachings are sound and biblical.
A NT chuch will always follow in the apostles doctrine and does not
operate according to reasoning, tradition etc. It's charter is the Word
of God. It's members are born again believers. The head is Christ, and
the conductor is the Holy Spirit.
Early christians as we see all thru Acts assembled according to the above
requirements, in fellowship, prayer and the breaking of bread. This is
the church - the body of Christ.
Mary
Alexander R Pruss (pru...@pitt.edu) wrote:
: Vance McAlister (v.mca...@ejgd.net) wrote:
: : So, if some of these Church doctrines, and the leaders who teach them,
: : are on the right path and some are going in the wrong direction, how I can
: : randomly choose one and blindly follow that lead?
: Well, you can ask yourself questions like: Does the particular church go
: back to the time of the Apostles? Does it have an unbroken continuity of
: doctrine throughout history? Etc. If there is a Church that can be
: trusted, then of course the answer to both questions will be YES. And,
: I submit, only the Catholic and Orthodox Churches can make a claim to
: "yes" answers with any plausibility. (And as a Catholic, I will take it
: that in the end the Catholic Church will prove to be able to say "yes"
: to both.)
: Alex
: --
: Alexander R. Pruss || e-mail: pru...@pitt.edu
: Graduate Student || home page: http://www.pitt.edu/~pruss
: Department of Philosophy || alternate e-mail address: pr...@member.ams.org
: University of Pittsburgh || Erdos number: 4
: Pittsburgh, PA 15260 ||
: U.S.A. ||
: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
: "Philosophiam discimus non ut tantum sciamus, sed ut boni efficiamur."
: - Paul of Worczyn (1424)
--
Email Address at home: a053...@bc.seflin.org
Email Address at work: st...@lifesavers.org
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
EgwEimi
In answer to Vance's question:
I would say simply, "Don't follow leaders."
Study the Bible, and follow what you know
to be right. Doing what someone else claims
you should do isn't good for your soul.
Suppose you are before God's throne, and God
asks, "Why did you follow these traditions
instead of me?" Answering, "Joe Schmoe
told me to" sure isn't going to take YOU
off the hook or relieve you of your own
responsibility for your personal relationship
with God -- a relationship that no one
alive can mediate for you.
Frank
Alexander R Pruss
: A NT chuch will always follow in the apostles doctrine and does not
Well, the Church _Paul_ was writing about certainly operated according
to Tradition:
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions
which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by
letter." (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
Note that the traditions were NOT all taught by letter, but some by
word of mouth, so there is an oral tradition.
Alex
--
Alexander R. Pruss || e-mail: pru...@pitt.edu
Graduate Student || home page: http://www.pitt.edu/~pruss
Department of Philosophy || alternate e-mail address: pr...@member.ams.org
University of Pittsburgh || Erdos number: 4
Pittsburgh, PA 15260 ||
U.S.A. ||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Philosophiam discimus non ut tantum sciamus, sed ut boni efficiamur."
- Paul of Worczyn (1424)
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
Alexander R Pruss
: In answer to Vance's question:
: I would say simply, "Don't follow leaders."
The Bible says: "you that are younger be subject to the elders" (1 Pet. 5:5).
Alex
Graeme
a053...@bc.seflin.org (Mary L Groff) wrote:
>Vance,
>You are correct. If you are born again (born of the Spirit of God) then
>the Holy Spirit is your personal guide and teacher.
Through the agency of the Word. The Holy Spirit is the revealer of the
Word.
> The body of Christ (Christ's church) is the Holy Spirit
That is incorrect. The body of Christ is made up of individual
believers. At the point of the Rapture of the Church the body becomes
the bride of Christ.
Graeme
Alexander R Pruss
gotten sent through by accident. Please post this one instead. Thanks!]
Vance McAlister (v.mca...@ejgd.net) wrote:
: This is a very good point and one that has led me start my search with the
: earliest teachings of the Church (ie, pre-Pauline).
Of course, we have little in the way of pre-Pauline documents, since
the earliest extant Christian documents are some of Paul's letters.
: If the teachings of
: those who knew Jesus personally and heard his full ministry are available to
: us (at least by logical deductions), then I can follow these concepts and
: doctrines to see whether the early Churches varied from them dramatically.
: Of course, if an early Church descision was not correctly grounded, then the
: fact that the Church religiously (pun intended) followed that dogma or
: doctrine is not a selling point.
: The only problem I am having with the early Church doctrines (first 3
: centuries) is that so much seems to be based on the decisions of men,
: getting further and further away from those who walked with Jesus. Since I
: don't accept their divine inspiration, their doctrines are not conclusive
: for me.
The choice between the decisions being made by men and being made by God
is not exclusive. It is a basic Judeo-Christian idea that God regularly
acts in history _through_ human beings. I am going to argue that if we
accept that God's ultimate revelation to us is in Jesus, then we have to
also accept that there is a Church that He has established on earth and
guided in truth.
We believe Jesus to be the Son of God, the Logos, God's ultimate revelation.
This is the ground on which one has to build any argument, whether for
Scripture, or for a Church, or for any other source of doctrine. There
is no other starting point.
Now, if Jesus is God's ultimate revelation, we would expect that God would
preserve His message on earth, and would not allow it to become obscured
with the passage of time. Otherwise, the "ultimate revelation" becomes a
rather limited thing, available to a handful of people in the first century
and then disappearing at least in part. But in fact, if it is the ultimate
revelation, if everything in Christ's life and preaching is a part of this
ultimate revelation of God's message to mankind, then no disappearance of
the message would be acceptable. Hence, it is to be expected that God would
ensure a means by which His people could know the truth of His revelation
in all the centuries after Christ's ascension into heaven, and by which
they could be sure of their source. Jesus did not come and leave His
message just for the 1st century---it was for all time.
Thus, on the basis of Jesus being God's revelation, we have a very reasonable
expectation that God has ensured a means by which this revelation was
available to His people throughout the centuries. The Gospels confirm
this expectation. According to them, Jesus guarantees that those who
hear His apostles will in fact be hearing Him (Luke 10:16), and that
the Holy Spirit will be sent to guide us into "all truth" (John 16:13).
He guarantees that "the gates of hell will not prevail" over the Church
that He is building (Matthew 16:18).
What then is the sure means, the pillar and bulwark of truth, by which we
can have access to God's revelation in its completeness? Paul says
that it is the Church that is "the pillar and bulwark of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).
However, perhaps we cannot yet rely on Paul, because at this stage in the
argument we have not yet established either the inerrance of the Church or
of the Scriptures (that is why the quotations from the Gospels in the
previous paragraph I listed as "confirmation", not as proof). All we have
established right now is that there is a sure means by which we can have
access to God's revelation.
But we can take Paul's words as a useful _hint_. For in fact it
is hard to imagine a better option for the sure means, for
the pillar and bulwark of truth, than it being the Church. The sure means
cannot be just individual revelation by the Holy Spirit, since we know that
Christian individuals widely differ on what the Holy Spirit says---obviously
if this is the means by which God preserves the truth, it isn't working
very well, because the people who rely on _individually_ discerning the
doctrines generally all end up believing different things, while there must
be only one truth. Nor can the sure means be ONLY a fixed set of written
texts. First of all, for quite a number of years after Jesus' ascension into
heaven there were no New Testament texts available. Secondly, no text is
self-interpreting. In addition to a text, there must be an interpretative
tradition or something like that. To see that, e.g., the Biblical text is
not self-interpreting we need only look at how widely different the
interpretations of the Bible are, all made by people claiming to interpret
it. (The Bible itself may hint at this difficulty when it says: "no
prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation" - 2 Pet. 1:20.)
Thirdly, if the sure means is limited to Scripture, then it is unavailable
to the illiterate---who, historically, were the vast majority of humankind
and of Christians. It would be a strange set-up if it was only with the
coming of the printing press over a millenium later that Christ's message
could be fully and correctly spread. So, the sure means cannot be limited
to private inspiration by the Holy Spirit, nor to Scripture, nor to the
combination of the two (the same arguments apply: e.g., persons claiming
to be guided by both differ widely in the conclusions they claim to be
guided to). Being guided by a divinely established human institution is
really the only other option. (What other option can there be that could
work?)
I submit, thus, that in order for the integrity of Christ's message to
be preserved through time, there would need to be a divinely established and
divinely guided human institution---a Church. Since God, having sent His
Son as the ultimate revelation, would have wanted to preserve this integrity,
we have no choice but to believe in such an institution. There is thus a
Church guided by God.
One question remains: _Which_ Church is it? Well, for that we can apply
the criteria suggested in my previous post. Since it is guided by God, and
since the message it preserves is from Christ, it must have existed from
the time of Christ in a continuous manner. Only the Catholic and Orthodox
Churches can make any plausible claim to such a continuity of existence.
Thus, one of the two must be the Church guided by God. And of the two,
for various reasons (which we can discuss if you accept everything else in
the argument), I take _the_ Church to be the Catholic Church.
If we accept this, then we have non-circular grounds for accepting Scripture
as well. (Non-circular, because my argument was not based on Scripture,
though confirmed by it.) The non-circular grounds are simply that the Church
which, as I argued, is guided by God accepts Scripture as divinely inspired
and has always done so.
: Were the doctrines developed by these early leaders based in some
: direct and logical fashion on the teachings of Jesus or the Apostles or are
: some of them "new revelations"?
There were no "new revelations". However, just as from the simple axioms
of Euclid one has over the centuries proved many complicated theorems of
geometry, so too from the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles, by
reflecting in the light of the Holy Spirit, the Church has derived many
things. The roots of these can be seen in Tradition and Scripture, but
the derivation might be complicated---just as in geometry. However, just
as in geometry there is nothing in the theorems that wasn't at least implicit
in the axioms, so too it is here: there is nothing the Church teaches that
wasn't at least implicit in Jesus' teaching. The Church, "the pillar and
bulwark of truth", is God's means of preserving the teaching.
Peace,
Alex
--
Alexander R. Pruss || e-mail: pru...@pitt.edu
Graduate Student || home page: http://www.pitt.edu/~pruss
Department of Philosophy || alternate e-mail address: pr...@member.ams.org
University of Pittsburgh || Erdos number: 4
Pittsburgh, PA 15260 ||
U.S.A. ||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Philosophiam discimus non ut tantum sciamus, sed ut boni efficiamur."
- Paul of Worczyn (1424)
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
Steve Adams
>Vance McAlister (v.mca...@ejgd.net) wrote:
>: So, if some of these Church doctrines, and the leaders who teach them,
>: are on the right path and some are going in the wrong direction, how I can
>: randomly choose one and blindly follow that lead?
>
>Well, you can ask yourself questions like: Does the particular church go
>back to the time of the Apostles? Does it have an unbroken continuity of
>doctrine throughout history? Etc. If there is a Church that can be
>trusted, then of course the answer to both questions will be YES. And,
>I submit, only the Catholic and Orthodox Churches can make a claim to
>"yes" answers with any plausibility. (And as a Catholic, I will take it
>that in the end the Catholic Church will prove to be able to say "yes"
>to both.)
Alex,
I have to disagree. I evaluated the claims between Orthodoxy and
Roman Catholicism, and based on several issues, I would say that
the Orthodox Church has a better claim on continuity of doctrine.
Given, for example, the issues of papal supremecy and infalliability,
as well as the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, Limbo, Indulgences,
etc, I believe that the Orthodox Church better represents the
historic faith. At one point, Rome & the East were in agreement.
One side changed.
-Steve
--
The opinions expressed above are those of the author
---NASCAR---In Memoriam---#7-#28-#51---
sad...@mcs.net Soli Deo Gloria Steve Adams
"Space-age cybernomad"
Steve Adams
>Mary L Groff<A053...@BC.SEFLIN.ORG wrote in message
><6vates$gl0$1...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>...>Vance,
>>You are correct. If you are born again (born of the Spirit of God) then
>>the Holy Spirit is your personal guide and teacher. The body of Christ
>>(Christ's church) is the Holy Spirit and is made up of sons of God that
>>have the Holy Spirit residing in them.
>
>Mary, one point I would like to make about your post.
>
>You say, "the body of Christ (Christ's church) is the Holy Spirit."
>
>While I agree that the body of Christ is Christ's church, and that it
>is made up of the regenerate, i.e. the "sons of God that have the
>Holy Sprit residing in them." I don't see why you say "the body
>of Christ IS THE HOLY SPIRIT."
>
>The Holy Spirit is God. See Acts 5. and multitudes of
>of other Scriptures. Hence I would not ever say "the church is
>the Holy Spirit."
Exactly right. Paul says that the Church is the Body of Christ, and
he is the head. The Holy Spirit is sent by the Father to the Church
to guide us into all truth.
Steve Adams
>teachings" etc. then a red flag should go up in order for you to be
>cautious. In reality, that red flag is the Holy Spirit who always leads
>with Truth and will always back up the Word of God 100%.
The Scriptures clearly say that we should be obedient to our leaders,
both secular and religious. In Romans, Paul tells us to obey the
government, since God has appointed them to keep order (but see
Acts 4&5 for the proper response to bad leadership). In Titus,
among other places., Paul makes it clear that elders (episkopi and/or
presbyteros) are to be obeyed and followed.
This is not a call for blind obedience, but your default action should
be to obey, unless you are being told to do something against God's
Law.
-Steve
--
The opinions expressed above are those of the author
---NASCAR---In Memoriam---#7-#28-#51---
sad...@mcs.net Soli Deo Gloria Steve Adams
"Space-age cybernomad"
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
Mary L Groff
: In answer to Vance's question:
: I would say simply, "Don't follow leaders."
: Study the Bible, and follow what you know
: to be right.
Hi,
Your statement above is contradictory. You say don't follow leaders but
then you say "follow what you know to be right - study the bible. Your
1st statement contradicts the next. It is impossible to study the bible
and do what the Lord commands and then not to follow the leaders He
places in His body. We are to submit one to another. Christ's body has
a structure - has a governing body. It is in Ephesians 4:8-14.
God bless,
Mary
Bart Goddard
> I would say simply, "Don't follow leaders."
This is way too reactionary. Indeed, it's a
direct violation of Scripture. Why would God
give us pastors and teachers and overseers
Eph. 4:11, Acts 20:28)if we weren't supposed to
listen to them? And the command of God is clear:
Heb 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you,
and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls,
as they that must give account, that they may do it
with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable
for you.
> Doing what someone else claims
> you should do isn't good for your soul.
Really? Does that include doing what YOU
just told him to do? (Namely "don't follow
leaders".)
The simple truth is that making arbitrary rules
like "don't follow leaders" or "always follow leaders"
1. Never work. 2. Aren't in Scripture. 3. Over
simplify the matter.
The answer is to follow leaders when they're leading
correctly and don't follow them when they're not. Duh.
> Suppose you are before God's throne, and God
> asks, "Why did you follow these traditions
> instead of me?" Answering, "Joe Schmoe
> told me to" sure isn't going to take YOU
> off the hook or relieve you of your own
> responsibility for your personal relationship
> with God -- a relationship that no one
> alive can mediate for you.
And vice versea, if God says "Why didn't you
listen to what the pastors, elders, teachers
and overseers I gave you?" how will you get yourself
off the hook?
Bart
Mary L Groff
: : A NT chuch will always follow in the apostles doctrine and does not
: : operate according to reasoning, tradition etc.
: Well, the Church _Paul_ was writing about certainly operated according
: to Tradition:
: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions
: which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by
: letter." (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
: Note that the traditions were NOT all taught by letter, but some by
: word of mouth, so there is an oral tradition.
I meant the traditions of men. I believe the traditions of those
following the Apostles doctrine were of God. There are many churches and
denominations that listen to and follow the traditions of MEN.
Vance McAlister
Thank you very much for this well-argued post. It has some very good points
and has given me much to think about. I do have some follow up questions,
however.
>We believe Jesus to be the Son of God, the Logos, God's ultimate
revelation.
>This is the ground on which one has to build any argument, whether for
>Scripture, or for a Church, or for any other source of doctrine. There
>is no other starting point.
>
>Now, if Jesus is God's ultimate revelation, we would expect that God would
>preserve His message on earth, and would not allow it to become obscured
>with the passage of time. Otherwise, the "ultimate revelation" becomes a
>rather limited thing, available to a handful of people in the first century
>and then disappearing at least in part. But in fact, if it is the ultimate
>revelation, if everything in Christ's life and preaching is a part of this
>ultimate revelation of God's message to mankind, then no disappearance of
>the message would be acceptable. Hence, it is to be expected that God
would
>ensure a means by which His people could know the truth of His revelation
>in all the centuries after Christ's ascension into heaven, and by which
>they could be sure of their source. Jesus did not come and leave His
>message just for the 1st century---it was for all time.
I think this makes perfect sense. If Jesus was his revelation (notice that
this point does not require pre-existent divinity of that messenger, but
that's another topic), then he would find a way to make that knowledge
accessible to later generations. He knew (even if Jesus didn't) that the
end was within the next generation and some form of transmittal would be
necessary. So far, I'm with you.
Here I must play devil's advocate (this has a poignant meaning in this ng!)
and argue another possibility (although not a position I am advocating, yet,
just a thought). We would agree that God knew that an oral tradition would
develop and preserve Jesus' teaching and that these teachings, along with
the story of Jesus, would be recorded for later generations. Isn't it
equally possible that this record contained His entire message and that the
method of transmittal was simply to be men going forth unto the world? This
would mean that the later interpretations of these teachings (either by
Paul, the Church or anyone else) may be useful in helping us understand
these teachings and their meaning for our lives, but not _necessarily_ of
God.
This is not just an idle thought, either. One good point you make is
that God must have designed a method of conveyance and that _if_ this
conveyance is the Church, it would, by defintion, have to be led of God.
This is true. However, the fact that the Church has been divisive and
contradictory from the beginning argues somewhat against it being the chosen
vessel. If God believed that an institution was necessary to pass on His
message, wouldn't this institution have less diversity on essential points?
One could argue that if He established the Church to pass on His pure
revelation, His idea failed since someone in my position would never know
which _Church_ is correct. (I know this is addressed below). Since God can
not fail, the argument would continue, he must _not_ have chosen the Church
as His transmittal. God would not prevent any from developing as many
"churches" as man could devise around his True Message, as long as that
message was still there for man to pass on. Even Catholics and Orthodox
would have to admit that He has allowed numerous "Christian" groups to
develop which they do not believe are of God, what if the Catholic and
Orthodox were merely the first? What if the Message is much simpler (and
thus more powerful) than we have made it and that all that was needed was
men going unto all the world preaching this message?
>I submit, thus, that in order for the integrity of Christ's message to
>be preserved through time, there would need to be a divinely established
and
>divinely guided human institution---a Church. Since God, having sent His
>Son as the ultimate revelation, would have wanted to preserve this
integrity,
>we have no choice but to believe in such an institution. There is thus a
>Church guided by God.
As I suggest above, was an institution ever needed? I know man has a
burning desire to institutionalize, to organize and to form committees, but
was this God's plan? I think it was at least possible that the Good News of
Jesus could have been (and still can be) passed to others even absent such
an institution. The institution may have done the job, but was it
necessary? And did it load down the Message with excess (but not necessarily
harmful) baggage? In other words, God made sure His message would get to
the world, but He will not step in to prevent human folly.
>One question remains: _Which_ Church is it? Well, for that we can apply
>the criteria suggested in my previous post. Since it is guided by God, and
>since the message it preserves is from Christ, it must have existed from
>the time of Christ in a continuous manner. Only the Catholic and Orthodox
>Churches can make any plausible claim to such a continuity of existence.
>Thus, one of the two must be the Church guided by God. And of the two,
>for various reasons (which we can discuss if you accept everything else in
>the argument), I take _the_ Church to be the Catholic Church.
>
>If we accept this, then we have non-circular grounds for accepting
Scripture
>as well. (Non-circular, because my argument was not based on Scripture,
>though confirmed by it.) The non-circular grounds are simply that the
Church
>which, as I argued, is guided by God accepts Scripture as divinely inspired
>and has always done so.
I would agree that if the Church was, indeed, the chosen vessel then it
would follow that He would guide that Church in the right path. This would
be useful so that there could be no disputes as to the nature of God's
message and the meaning for our daily lives and ultimate salvation. Again,
however, the fact that such disputes abounded even within his "chosen
vessel" to the point that this vessel is now divided into a thousand diverse
teachings, would argue to some extent that such a guided vessel was never
intended and that His message can be found in Jesus alone, which _was_
preserved by His guidance.
While I am just considering these thoughts, the reason for their
development is very simple. The teachings of Jesus and the role he played
in God's plan for us hits me like a tidal wave, a power I can only believe
is of God. The completeness of Jesus' two commandments and all that follows
from them are so profound that I have no choice but to attempt, in my poor
human way, to follow them. The traditions, doctrines and dogma of the
Church, however, have no emotional impact whatsoever. They often seem petty
and, well, _human_, compared to this Divine revelation through Jesus. I
know this is a personal and unsupportable point, but it at least will convey
the origin and nature of my doubts. You see that I am not just some
new-age, anti-establishment deconstructionist.
>: Were the doctrines developed by these early leaders based in some
>: direct and logical fashion on the teachings of Jesus or the Apostles or
are
>: some of them "new revelations"?
>
>There were no "new revelations". However, just as from the simple axioms
>of Euclid one has over the centuries proved many complicated theorems of
>geometry, so too from the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles, by
>reflecting in the light of the Holy Spirit, the Church has derived many
>things. The roots of these can be seen in Tradition and Scripture, but
>the derivation might be complicated---just as in geometry. However, just
>as in geometry there is nothing in the theorems that wasn't at least
implicit
>in the axioms, so too it is here: there is nothing the Church teaches that
>wasn't at least implicit in Jesus' teaching. The Church, "the pillar and
>bulwark of truth", is God's means of preserving the teaching.
This does answer my question, thank you. I will, of course, look at these
teachings to see the growth and development, but I could see how such
doctrines would develop. Thank you again for your thoughts and allowing me
to raise these questions in a practical manner.
Vance McAlister
Mary L Groff wrote in message <6vllup$959$1...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>...
>EgwEimi (egw...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>: In answer to Vance's question:
>
>: I would say simply, "Don't follow leaders."
>: Study the Bible, and follow what you know
>: to be right.
>
>Hi,
>Your statement above is contradictory. You say don't follow leaders but
>then you say "follow what you know to be right - study the bible. Your
>1st statement contradicts the next. It is impossible to study the bible
>and do what the Lord commands and then not to follow the leaders He
>places in His body. We are to submit one to another. Christ's body has
>a structure - has a governing body. It is in Ephesians 4:8-14.
Of course, this is only true if you accept that Paul was speaking for Jesus.
Did Jesus himself ever advocate a new institutional Church? Even if one
draws an inference from something he said, there is definitely no details
regarding its structure.
Alexander R Pruss
: I have to disagree. I evaluated the claims between Orthodoxy and
: Roman Catholicism, and based on several issues, I would say that
: the Orthodox Church has a better claim on continuity of doctrine.
: Given, for example, the issues of papal supremecy and infalliability,
: as well as the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, Limbo, Indulgences,
: etc, I believe that the Orthodox Church better represents the
: historic faith.
Of course, I disagree: I see these things as natural development from
the data of revelation--except for Limbo which neither is nor ever was
a part of the teaching of the Catholic Church. (Some theologians speculated
about it, but it was never officially taught, or denied for that matter,
by the Church.)
: At one point, Rome & the East were in agreement.
: One side changed.
On the other hand, Eastern Orthodoxy does not consider itself capable of
holding (infallible) Oecumenical Councils any more, while Catholicism does.
I accept the teachings of Oecumenical Councils like Lateran IV, Trent,
Vatican I, and Vatican II. Insofar as Councils in times of crisis are
historically a clear part of the Church's structure, I take the apparent
inability of Eastern Orthodoxy to hold such Councils to be a proof of the
greater structural continuity of Catholicism.
Besides, I think the filioque must be true. Moreover, I take the Eastern
Orthodox practice of permitting (penitential) remarriage when the first
spouse is still alive to be a clear contradiction of Jesus' teaching on
divorce.
But really I think we do not need to discuss all this in this thread, since
presumably we agree on the value of Tradition, and we agree that there is
no option _other_ than Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, and that was all
I was trying to argue.
Alex
--
Alexander R. Pruss || e-mail: pru...@pitt.edu
Graduate Student || home page: http://www.pitt.edu/~pruss
Department of Philosophy || alternate e-mail address: pr...@member.ams.org
University of Pittsburgh || Erdos number: 4
Pittsburgh, PA 15260 ||
U.S.A. ||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Philosophiam discimus non ut tantum sciamus, sed ut boni efficiamur."
- Paul of Worczyn (1424)
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
Alexander R Pruss
: denominations that listen to and follow the traditions of MEN.
But on what basis do you tell that the traditions are of men, and not of God?
Mary L Groff
: : I meant the traditions of men. I believe the traditions of those
: : following the Apostles doctrine were of God. There are many churches and
: : denominations that listen to and follow the traditions of MEN.
: But on what basis do you tell that the traditions are of men, and not of God?
: Alex
The basis and the standard to follow is always the Word of God. Any
traditions, rules, regulations, writings, reasonings etc. that cannot be
lined up with the Word of God, or found in the Word of God are traditions
of men. The Apostles doctrines were basically an explanation or
reiteration of everything Jesus Christ taught.
God bless,
Mary
--
Email Address at home: a053...@bc.seflin.org
Email Address at work: st...@lifesavers.org
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In soc.religion.christian.bible-study did Alexander R Pruss a stately USENET-post decree:
: On the other hand, Eastern Orthodoxy does not consider itself capable of
: holding (infallible) Oecumenical Councils any more, while Catholicism does.
Says who? There is no reason that the Orthodox could not hold a council
which was later accepted as Ecumenical. We certainly don't need Rome's
permission or participation, since she departed from us a long time ago.
: Besides, I think the filioque must be true.
Then you place yourself under the anathema of the Ecumenical Councils
which decreed that the Symbol of Faith (the Creed) was not to be altered.
Even Rome rejected the _filioque_ heresy initially.
--Andrew
--
Andrew S. Damick ----------------------- gu...@ncsu.edu ---------------
"When I became a Christian I voluntarily crucified my mind, and all the
crosses that I bear have been only a source of joy for me. I have lost
nothing and gained everything." -- Fr. Seraphim Rose
Gary
<6vl7t9$3at$1...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>...
>: operate according to reasoning, tradition etc.
>
>Well, the Church _Paul_ was writing about certainly operated according
>to Tradition:
> "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions
> which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by
> letter." (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
>Note that the traditions were NOT all taught by letter, but some by
>word of mouth, so there is an oral tradition.
Alex, the problem is that some believe that the RCC and for that
matter the OC also are teaching "traditions" which originate from
"man," and not from God, as they believe that some of these
traditions are in conflict with the commandments of God as
given in the Scriptures, as did the Jews as Jesus says below:
Matthew 15:3 But he answered and said unto them,
Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God
by your tradition?
Now that it is "possible," for the "church," to be in error,
and to teach false doctrine is evident by several of the
books of the NT, for example the book of Galatians.
Now you will no doubt say, but that was a "local,"
condition, and not the church "universal." Well the
problem is that in several instances, for relatively
short periods of time, even the "ecumenical councils,"
erred, and then correct themselves, showing that
even the "universal" church can be in doctrinal error.
I put these in quotes because, unlike you, I do not
associate the true church with a specific organization,
but with those who are regenerate.
The bottom line is, of course, that Protestants believe
the Catholic churches are in error on some points,
and your argument on "the traditions of the 'church,'"
does not "hold water," for us.
As we firmly believe that Jesus would say the same
thing to these churches as He said to the Jews in
the above cited verse.
Sincerely, Gary
g...@iag.net, SEE Trinity vs. Heresy
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/3186/
Ro 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
Gary
Alexander R Pruss wrote in message <6vl7te$3b0$1...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>...
>EgwEimi (egw...@aol.com) wrote:
>: In answer to Vance's question:
>
>: I would say simply, "Don't follow leaders."
>
5:5).
One of the first requirement of "elders," is that they be MARRIED.
This is the opposite of the RCC doctrine, and it directly contradicts
the Scriptures. Hence an obvious example of your "traditions," being
the "traditions of MEN," and against the Commandments of God.
Lifesavers
can't remember what is was?? Clearly we are to obey our elders etc. as long
as we we are in submission to Christ first and foremost.
Mary
>The Scriptures clearly say that we should be obedient to our leaders,
>both secular and religious. In Romans, Paul tells us to obey the
>government, since God has appointed them to keep order (but see
>Acts 4&5 for the proper response to bad leadership). In Titus,
>among other places., Paul makes it clear that elders (episkopi and/or
>presbyteros) are to be obeyed and followed.
>
>This is not a call for blind obedience, but your default action should
>be to obey, unless you are being told to do something against God's
>Law.
>
> -Steve
Lifesavers
>>You are correct. If you are born again (born of the Spirit of God) then
>>the Holy Spirit is your personal guide and teacher.
>
>Word.
>Graeme
Dear Graeme,
The Holy Spirit reveals the Word and indwells the believer, if one is born
again. No Holy Ghost - then no born again regenerative state.
Mary
Lifesavers
teachings of Christ which are basically just expounded upon in the Apostles
doctrine. All tradition, written or oral must line up with the Word of God.
Scripture tells us there is no personal interpretation of the Word, the
bible. Scripture interprets scripture. God interprets His own Word in His
Word. All traditions must be of the Word. If they cannot be found in the
Word or corroborated by the Word of God then they are traditions,
resonsings, writings of men.
God bless,
Mary
Alexander R Pruss wrote in message <6vl7t9$3at$1...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>...
>Mary L Groff (a053...@bc.seflin.org) wrote:
>: A NT chuch will always follow in the apostles doctrine and does not
>: operate according to reasoning, tradition etc.
>
>Well, the Church _Paul_ was writing about certainly operated according
>to Tradition:
> "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions
> which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by
> letter." (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
>Note that the traditions were NOT all taught by letter, but some by
>word of mouth, so there is an oral tradition.
>
>Alex
Lifesavers
God?
>Alex
The yardstick or standard we must always follow and use in cases such as
this is the Word of God. The bible. For example...I attended a parochail
school for 12 years. As a child we grew up with a Catholic doctrine (or
sorts) that we could not eat meat on Fridays. This is a tradition of men.
We followed this rule/regulation by the book. Friday after Friday. Had we
had a true understanding of the Word of God we would not have allowed
ourselves to be held captive to that rule or tradition. You will not find
that particular command in the Word of God.
Now if it was a question of "fasting", then we are to be led by the Word and
the Holy Spirit. Not the dictates of flesh or men.
Mary
Gary
Steve Adams wrote in message <6vlbdj$50r$1...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>...
>a053...@bc.seflin.org (Mary L Groff) writes:
>>Vance McAlister (v.mca...@ejgd.net) wrote:
>>
>>When you hear someone say "you must do as we say", or "follow OUR
>>teachings" etc. then a red flag should go up in order for you to be
>>cautious. In reality, that red flag is the Holy Spirit who always leads
>>with Truth and will always back up the Word of God 100%.
>
>both secular and religious. In Romans, Paul tells us to obey the
>government, since God has appointed them to keep order (but see
>Acts 4&5 for the proper response to bad leadership). In Titus,
>among other places., Paul makes it clear that elders (episkopi and/or
>presbyteros) are to be obeyed and followed.
>
>This is not a call for blind obedience, but your default action should
>be to obey, unless you are being told to do something against God's
>Law.
What both you and Alex are saying, that the Christian should follow
the lead of the elders, is quite true and self evident from the Scriptures,
BUT the question remains, who are these "elders?" And from the perspective
of most Protestants they most certainly are NOT the leaders of either
the OC or the RCC. As I posted in another place to Alex, the Scriptures
state that the elder must be married.
Sincerely, Gary
g...@iag.net, SEE Trinity vs. Heresy
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/3186/
Ro 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
mejo...@my-dejanews.com
[snip]
> >Well, you can ask yourself questions like: Does the particular church go
> >back to the time of the Apostles? Does it have an unbroken continuity of
> >doctrine throughout history? Etc. If there is a Church that can be
> >trusted, then of course the answer to both questions will be YES. And,
> >I submit, only the Catholic and Orthodox Churches can make a claim to
> >"yes" answers with any plausibility.
[snip]
> I have to disagree. I evaluated the claims between Orthodoxy and
> Roman Catholicism, and based on several issues, I would say that
> the Orthodox Church has a better claim on continuity of doctrine.
I won't disagree that the Orthodox Church has the better claim to teaching
the same doctrine, but to be fair to Alex and even to the entire errant Roman
Church, I feel I must point out that this does not contradict what Alex said.
He only said that only the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches can make a
"plausible claim". The others have given up even trying to make such a
plausible claim.
Now in the final analysis, I give the palm to the Orthodox, not to the Roman
Church. But I do admit that their claim is at least plausible, even if in the
end I turn it down.
Matthew Johnson
Ex Oriente Lux!
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Lifesavers
Jesus.
>Did Jesus himself ever advocate a new institutional Church? Even if one
>draws an inference from something he said, there is definitely no details
>regarding its structure.
Well Vance, you are right. One must first accept the fact that Paul was
speaking for Jesus. The apostles only expounded on and taught the precepts
of Christ's teachings. In addition, Paul received the revelation of Jeus
Christ. Much more so than even the apostles that walked with Christ.
Acts 9:15
But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto
me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of
Israel:
2 Cor. 12:11
I have become foolish; you yourselves compelled me. Actually I should
have been commended by you, for in no respect was I inferior to the most
eminent apostles, even though I am a nobody.
Ephes. 3:8
To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to
the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ,
1 Cor. 15:10
But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not
prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the
grace of God with me.
Mary
Alexander R Pruss
: : Besides, I think the filioque must be true.
: Then you place yourself under the anathema of the Ecumenical Councils
: which decreed that the Symbol of Faith (the Creed) was not to be altered.
: Even Rome rejected the _filioque_ heresy initially.
The following two statements are logically compatible:
(1) The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and
(2) The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Since there is no contradiction between the two, by believing the second
I do not contradict the first. Indeed, I accept both (1) and (2).
Unless you find a Conciliar statement saying that (2) is a heresy, you
have no case.
And, of course, we contend that later Catholic Oecumenical Councils have
defined the filioque, assuming it is to be understood as just another way
of expressing St John of Damascus' formula that the Holy Spirit proceed
from the Father through the Son.
Everything that the Father has, He has given to the Son. The Father has
the procession of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Son has it too, albeit
derivatively.
Alex
--
Alexander R. Pruss || e-mail: pru...@pitt.edu
Graduate Student || home page: http://www.pitt.edu/~pruss
Department of Philosophy || alternate e-mail address: pr...@member.ams.org
University of Pittsburgh || Erdos number: 4
Pittsburgh, PA 15260 ||
U.S.A. ||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Philosophiam discimus non ut tantum sciamus, sed ut boni efficiamur."
- Paul of Worczyn (1424)
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
Alexander R Pruss
: Now you will no doubt say, but that was a "local,"
: condition, and not the church "universal." Well the
: problem is that in several instances, for relatively
: short periods of time, even the "ecumenical councils,"
: erred, and then correct themselves, showing that
: even the "universal" church can be in doctrinal error.
No ecumenical council has defined a doctrine that a later council has changed.
Could you document your claim?
Alexander R Pruss
: One of the first requirement of "elders," is that they be MARRIED.
What about Paul? He was celibate. The Church has _never_ historically
banned unmarried persons from the presbyterate.
: This is the opposite of the RCC doctrine, and it directly contradicts
: the Scriptures.
Actually, priestly celibacy is not a doctrine, but a changeable Church rule
(to use technical terms, it is "discipline" not "teaching"). The Church,
in her wisdom, sees that in our day and age it is better for priests of
the Roman rite to be celibate. This was not possible in the first century
because of the lack of celibate candidates. It is a rule that could
conceivably be changed (though I think it would be imprudent to change it;
it has too many advantages on its side).
Alexander R Pruss
: I agree there can be oral tradition as long as it lines up with the
: teachings of Christ which are basically just expounded upon in the Apostles
: doctrine. All tradition, written or oral must line up with the Word of God.
: Scripture tells us there is no personal interpretation of the Word, the
: bible. Scripture interprets scripture. God interprets His own Word in His
: Word.
No text is self-interpreting. One always brings assumptions to a text one
is reading. If one reads outside of a communal interpretative tradition,
one is always engaging in personal interpretation. A private reader can
always claim, "Such and such a thing means so and so", and then interpret
everything else in the Bible appropriately in a way that makes it "fit".
: All traditions must be of the Word. If they cannot be found in the
: Word or corroborated by the Word of God then they are traditions,
: resonsings, writings of men.
The unfortunate thing is that this claim you are making (that only
things found in or corroborated by Scripture can be of God) cannot be
either found in Scripture nor corroborated by it. By your own
standards, then, it is a tradition, reasoning or writing of men.
Alexander R Pruss
: As a child we grew up with a Catholic doctrine (or
: sorts) that we could not eat meat on Fridays. This is a tradition of men.
: We followed this rule/regulation by the book. Friday after Friday. Had we
: had a true understanding of the Word of God we would not have allowed
: ourselves to be held captive to that rule or tradition. You will not find
: that particular command in the Word of God.
We are commanded by the Bible to obey our Church leaders. It was never
a _doctrine_ that one is not to eat meat on Fridays, but it was a commandment
_of the Church_. Since one is obliged to obey the Church, one is obliged to
abstain from meat on Fridays if one is commanded to do so. Jesus said to
the Apostles: "What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven." The Church
at one time commanded people, for their own good, that they might fast
on Fridays. (The Church still commands it, though it lets us substitute
another penance/deed of charity on Friday if we prefer.) This was a
commandment of the Church, which one is required to obey, just as one is
required to obey one's government (unless what is commanded is sinful,
but it is clearly not sinful to fast!)
Alexander R Pruss
: He only said that only the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches can make a
: "plausible claim". The others have given up even trying to make such a
: plausible claim.
: Now in the final analysis, I give the palm to the Orthodox, not to the Roman
: Church. But I do admit that their claim is at least plausible, even if in the
: end I turn it down.
Right. Thanks, Matthew, for coming to my aid. (Of course, in your last
paragraph I'd interchange "Orthodox" and "Roman" :-) )
Vance McAlister
Lifesavers wrote in message <6vtmo1$6os$1...@Jupiter.mcs.net>...
>>Of course, this is only true if you accept that Paul was speaking for
>Jesus.
>>Did Jesus himself ever advocate a new institutional Church? Even if one
>>draws an inference from something he said, there is definitely no details
>>regarding its structure.
>
>Well Vance, you are right. One must first accept the fact that Paul was
>speaking for Jesus. The apostles only expounded on and taught the precepts
>of Christ's teachings. In addition, Paul received the revelation of Jeus
>Christ. Much more so than even the apostles that walked with Christ.
>
>
>Acts 9:15
> But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto
>me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of
>Israel:
>
>2 Cor. 12:11
> I have become foolish; you yourselves compelled me. Actually I should
>have been commended by you, for in no respect was I inferior to the most
>eminent apostles, even though I am a nobody.
>
>Ephes. 3:8
> To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to
>the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ,
>
>
>1 Cor. 15:10
> But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not
>prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the
>grace of God with me.
You know, Mary, I have always been somewhat skeptical of Paul's status. For
one thing, I do not accept the Canon as inerrant or necessarily inspired.
For this reason, I have to view Paul's statements objectively and his
self-serving statements regarding his position don't carry the position. I
have not yet done a thorough study of Paul, and after doing so, with the
Spirit's guidance, I may have a very different opinion. Or maybe not. For
now, I treat Paul's statements as wise counsel of a highly intelligent and
insightful man, but not as the word of God.
Clayton Austin
< email@lifesavers > (Lifesavers)
a053...@bc.seflin.org > (Mary Groff) wrote:
Vance, you are correct. If you are born again (born of the Spirit of
God) then the Holy Spirit is your personal guide and teacher.
Graeme wrote:
Through the agency of the word (bible). The Holy Spirit is the
revealer of the word.
Mary wrote"
Dear Graeme, The Holy Spirit reveals the word and indwells the
believer, if one is born again. No Holy Ghost - then no born again
regenerative state. Mary
Gene Austin writes:
There is only "one Holy Spirit", and that Holy Spirit is the only wise
and true omnipresent God. Jesus Christ was that God incarnate in the
corporeal body formed in the uterus of the virgin Mary. He said the
flesh profits nothing: it is the Spirit that quickens (reveals,
regenerates, and gives life). And the words that I speak unto you, they
are Spirit, and they are life. (Jn.6:63)
This may come as a shocking earthquake to many, but Jesus Christ, the
Spirit of truth and liberty or the comforter, is the word or God
expressed or the Spirit-mind that was predesigned and manifested in the
Son of God to teach and bring each person in the church to perfection or
completeness in the progressive work of sanctification. The Holy Spirit
is Jesus Christ and not another, and when he resides in each person he
teaches and empowers the people to receive his mind, the knowledge of
the truth, his character and experience his immaculate agape love.
>>>>==Gene=Austin===>
http://www.angelfire.com/nc/multif/index.html &
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/2490/science/face.html
Alexander R Pruss
: : : I meant the traditions of men. I believe the traditions of those
: : : denominations that listen to and follow the traditions of MEN.
: : But on what basis do you tell that the traditions are of men, and not of God?
: The basis and the standard to follow is always the Word of God.
But how do you know what is the word of God? There are three questions
here:
(1) How do you know what books go into the canon of Scripture?
(2) How do you know that there is nothing outside of Scripture that is
just as surely the word of God?
(3) How do you know what the correct interpretation of the texts is?
Alex
--
Alexander R. Pruss || e-mail: pru...@pitt.edu
Graduate Student || home page: http://www.pitt.edu/~pruss
Department of Philosophy || alternate e-mail address: pr...@member.ams.org
University of Pittsburgh || Erdos number: 4
Pittsburgh, PA 15260 ||
U.S.A. ||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Philosophiam discimus non ut tantum sciamus, sed ut boni efficiamur."
- Paul of Worczyn (1424)
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
MatthewJohnson
>>But on what basis do you tell that the traditions are of men, and not of
>God?
>>Alex
>The yardstick or standard we must always follow and use in cases such as
>this is the Word of God. The bible.
Which Bible? Or, to be more precise, the "Bible" containing which
books? Only those books accepted by the Jews, or those accepted by
all Christians from St. Paul through to (but not including) Luther?
For St. Paul knew and borrowed language and ideas from the Wisdom of
SOlomon and the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach (a.k.a. Ecclesiasticus).
Luther was the first to deprive generations of Christians of these
holy books by whimsically deciding to accept only those OT books
accepted by the enemies of Christianity.
> For example...I attended a parochail
>school for 12 years. As a child we grew up with a Catholic doctrine (or
>sorts) that we could not eat meat on Fridays. This is a tradition of men.
Not true at all! See below
>We followed this rule/regulation by the book. Friday after Friday. Had we
>had a true understanding of the Word of God we would not have allowed
>ourselves to be held captive to that rule or tradition. You will not find
>that particular command in the Word of God.
Oh, yes you will, if you read it correctly. For when the disciples of
John asked Christ why his disciples did not fast, he answered:
How can they fast while the bridegroom is with them? But on the day
when the bridegrom is taken away, on that day they will fast. (Lk 5:34-5)
This is why on Friday, the day when He was taken from us, we fast.
But since one day a week is really not enough fasting, the Orthodox
add Wednesday as well. Remember that Christ did not say "IF you
fast", but "WHEN you fast (Mt 6:16)".
Matthew Johnson
Ex Oriente Lux!
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
BJWakeland
In article <6vu14u$a8q$1...@Jupiter.mcs.net>, pru...@pitt.edu (Alexander R Pruss)
writes:
>What about Paul? He was celibate. The Church has _never_ historically
>banned unmarried persons from the presbyterate.
I have heard this before but never investigated. Where can I find biblical
evidence that Paul was celibate?
CTR
Bob
Gary
>Gary (g...@iag.net) wrote:
>: Now you will no doubt say, but that was a "local,"
>: condition, and not the church "universal." Well the
>: problem is that in several instances, for relatively
>: short periods of time, even the "ecumenical councils,"
>: erred, and then correct themselves, showing that
>: even the "universal" church can be in doctrinal error.
>
>No ecumenical council has defined a doctrine that a later council has
changed.
>Could you document your claim?
>
>Alex
that the Orthodox church would assert that the RCC CHANGED
the creed by adding the filoque. I just read your post about this
and basically agree with your, however I doubt very much that
Steve would agree! I am sure the Orthodox church sees the RCC
as changing the previous councils work? Maybe Steve will comment
on this.
Further, Alex, I posted several other posts on this, and specifically,
the one about church leaders, where the RCC teaches that they
must be single men, and the Bible teaches that they must be married
with children.
Sincerely, Gary
g...@iag.net, SEE Trinity vs. Heresy
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/3186/
Ro 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
Gary
Paul was an Apostle, not an Elder.
>The Church has _never_ historically
>banned unmarried persons from the presbyterate.
According to you, thanks, this proves that "the
church," as defined by you departed from the
truth quite quickly.
Titus 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest
set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every
city, as I had appointed thee:
6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife,
having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward
of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to
wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless,
the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good
behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1 Timothy 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker,
not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a
brawler, not covetous;
1 Timothy 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house,
having his children in subjection with all gravity;
Now, Alex, I don't want to get into a big argument
about this. But note above that in TWO places the
Scripture states, "husband of one wife." And also
have children. I don't care that you and your church
don't do this, I am just pointing out a simple example
of where your church teaches and practices the
opposite of what the Scriptures state.
My only point is: That God has given each
of us a brain, and we are to use it. An example
from Scripture where we are to us it directly
against the "leaders," is:
Acts 5:27 And when
they had brought them, they set them before
the council: and the high priest asked them,
28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you
that ye should not teach in this name? and,
behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your
doctrine, and intend to bring this man's
blood upon us.
29 Then Peter and the other apostles
answered and said,
We ought to obey God rather than men.
I know you have written on this, (I believe
it was you),. and said some good things!
But, many practices of the RCC are such
that I for one cannot abide them, as I see
them directly opposed to God. I would
say the primary example of this is "praying
to [asking a dead saint to pray] a saint.
This, in my mind, makes the saint have
some of the attributes of God, i.e. that
they can hear MANY persons (in their
thoughts) simultaneously. This is not only
repugnant to me, but downright blasphemous.
>
>: This is the opposite of the RCC doctrine, and it directly contradicts
>: the Scriptures.
>
>Actually, priestly celibacy is not a doctrine, but a changeable Church rule
>(to use technical terms, it is "discipline" not "teaching"). The Church,
>in her wisdom, sees that in our day and age it is better for priests of
>the Roman rite to be celibate. This was not possible in the first century
>because of the lack of celibate candidates. It is a rule that could
>conceivably be changed (though I think it would be imprudent to change it;
>it has too many advantages on its side).
Also a couple of disadvantages, in that it directly opposes
Scripture, and other reasons.
Stephen Bayzik
wrote:
>A NT chuch will always follow in the apostles doctrine and does not
>operate according to reasoning, tradition etc. It's charter is the Word
>of God. It's members are born again believers. The head is Christ, and
>the conductor is the Holy Spirit.
Mary; what are you trying to do; rewrite history?
You have a few glaring misconceptions.
The Church (or proto-churches would be more like it) preceded the New
Testament.
Tradition, is a large category; and the development of what we today
call the canon of New Testament scripture is a part and parcel of the
said.
Reason is not at odds with revelation (though it may very well be with
those who draw doctrine from the said).
The "word of God" is not a "charter"; if one wishes to be precise "the
Word" is the Logos. Your "word of God" is but the revelation which was
developed and codified (primarily in the initial stages for a ritual
liturgy) and canonized by the Church.
The body of Christ is called the "Pleroma"; a term used in the
Pauline and pro-Pauline texts.
A Church is an institution of people who believe (whether it is true
or not is not my concern) themselves to be people of God.
The phrase "born again" is a faulty mistranslation of "born from
above" - not some magical appellation given to members of ether "The
Church" or one of the multitude of denominations separated from The
Church; but not necessarily the Pleroma..
The Body of Christ is a mystique which covers all people (knowingly or
unknowingly, explicit or implicit) who follow (figuratively) in the
path of the Christ (the way the truth and the light).
>Early christians as we see all thru Acts assembled according to the above
>requirements, in fellowship, prayer and the breaking of bread. This is
>the church - the body of Christ.
Wrong! the Lucinian texts (both the Gospel as well as the
pseudo-history "Acts") did not come into existence until well after
many of the disciples took up the mission of their executed master;
ie. the Christ. And there was conflict amongst the latter in terms of
defining the Christ; "ie. Christology".
I'm afraid Mary, that though your intentions may be noble, your
understanding of the development of Christianity is somewhat infantile
(or at least that is my perception).
Your use of the analogy of the Holy Spirit as a "conductor" almost
leads me to laughter. Other than saying that such an image leads me to
perceive of the said hypostasis as someone who has attempted to
conduct a twenty five thousand plus part fugue with the end result
being noise with no basic tonal scale or harmony - I'll leave any
further comments in abeyance..
Gary
>mejo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>: He only said that only the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches can make
a
>: "plausible claim". The others have given up even trying to make such a
>: plausible claim.
>
>: Now in the final analysis, I give the palm to the Orthodox, not to the
Roman
>: Church. But I do admit that their claim is at least plausible, even if in
the
>: end I turn it down.
>
>Right. Thanks, Matthew, for coming to my aid. (Of course, in your last
>paragraph I'd interchange "Orthodox" and "Roman" :-) )
>
>From my viewpoint and that of many millions of other Christians
this "claim," of " unbroken continuity," is not only meaningless,
but downright not even wanted! When the "links," in a chain are
corrupt, we don't want to have much to do with the chain. When
we can look at the doctrines of the RCC and OC and see what
we believe to be blatant opposition to the Word of God, and
the Scriptures, we don't even want to associate with such doctrines.
I do believe that shortly after (in fact even during) the NT times,
that many in the church departed from the "faith once delivered
to the saints," often the most vocal, and powerful, and that they
introduced false doctrines, which were received to a more or
less degree by professed Christians.
You and the RCC and OC equate the true Church of Christ with
your organizations, but many of us do not. While I would say
that many in the RCC and OC are regenerate, the RCC and OC
ORGANIZATIONS do not therefore have a monopoly on being
true church.
We, of course, will never agree on these points. To me it is as
obvious that the RCC and the OC teach error (as defined by
the Scriptures) as it is that Christ is LORD.
Sincerely, Gary
g...@iag.net, SEE Trinity vs. Heresy
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/3186/
Ro 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
Steve Adams
>: Mary L Groff (a053...@bc.seflin.org) wrote:
>: : A NT chuch will always follow in the apostles doctrine and does not
>: : operate according to reasoning, tradition etc.
>
>: Well, the Church _Paul_ was writing about certainly operated according
>: to Tradition:
>: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions
>: which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by
>: letter." (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
>: Note that the traditions were NOT all taught by letter, but some by
>: word of mouth, so there is an oral tradition.
>
>I meant the traditions of men. I believe the traditions of those
>following the Apostles doctrine were of God. There are many churches and
>denominations that listen to and follow the traditions of MEN.
How do you evaluate tradition and determine if it is from God or
from men? Would you accept a tradition that was not directly
espoused in Scripture? Under what circumstances?
In other words, if some claim to have authentic Apostolic tradition,
as 2 Thes 2:15 and other verses indicate exists, how do you decide
if it is a tradition of man or of God? What is your standard?
-Steve
--
The opinions expressed above are those of the author
---NASCAR---In Memoriam---#7-#28-#51---
sad...@mcs.net Soli Deo Gloria Steve Adams
"Space-age cybernomad"
Steve Adams
>Steve Adams (sad...@MCS.COM) wrote:
<< Snip >>
>: At one point, Rome & the East were in agreement.
>: One side changed.
>
>On the other hand, Eastern Orthodoxy does not consider itself capable of
>holding (infallible) Oecumenical Councils any more, while Catholicism does.
This is not the case - the East by no means says that an Eccumenical
Council cannot be called.
>I accept the teachings of Oecumenical Councils like Lateran IV, Trent,
>Vatican I, and Vatican II. Insofar as Councils in times of crisis are
>historically a clear part of the Church's structure, I take the apparent
>inability of Eastern Orthodoxy to hold such Councils to be a proof of the
>greater structural continuity of Catholicism.
I disagree - the 7 Eccumenical councils all addressed issues of
Christology, one way or another. Has there been a new Christological
crisis that would warrant such a council?
Also, since there was never a Reformation in the East, there was no
need of councils such as Trent to "counter-reform" the Orthodox Church.
Finally, since only one Patriarchate was involved in those councils
you mention, they cannot rightly be called Eccumenical - 4 of the
5 Patriarchates rejected them.
>Besides, I think the filioque must be true.
It seems to confuse the eternal procession of the Spirit from the
Father and the temporal sending of the Spirit by the Son. The
East has always seen the Father as the source of both the Spirit
and the Son - the Son being eterhanlly beotten of the Father and the
Spirit eternally proceding from the Father. To claim that the Spirit
eternally procedes from the Son creates a subordination, intended or
not, of the Spirit that is improper. and more accurately reflects
neo-platnist philosophy than the consensus of the Fathers of the Church.
Don't get me wrong - I do not deny that the Son sends the Spirit, He
does. I do deny that the Spirit procedes from the Son - that is, I
deny that the Spirit has the Son as His source of eternal procession.
>Moreover, I take the Eastern
>Orthodox practice of permitting (penitential) remarriage when the first
>spouse is still alive to be a clear contradiction of Jesus' teaching on
>divorce.
And this differs from the Roman Catholic "anulment" how?
>But really I think we do not need to discuss all this in this thread, since
>presumably we agree on the value of Tradition, and we agree that there is
>no option _other_ than Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, and that was all
>I was trying to argue.
In that I agree - there is no other valid option. We disagree on who
has the better claim. Perhaps, one day, Rome and the East will
achieve communion...but the differences are still to great.
Gary
>Lifesavers (em...@lifesavers.org) wrote:
>: I agree there can be oral tradition as long as it lines up with the
>: teachings of Christ which are basically just expounded upon in the
Apostles
>: doctrine. All tradition, written or oral must line up with the Word of
God.
>: Scripture tells us there is no personal interpretation of the Word, the
>: bible. Scripture interprets scripture. God interprets His own Word in His
>: Word.
>
>No text is self-interpreting. One always brings assumptions to a text one
>is reading. If one reads outside of a communal interpretative tradition,
>one is always engaging in personal interpretation.
But Alex, although you maintain that "your communal,"
interpretative tradition is correct and the rest of us are
incorrect, this is just your church's opinion. Through
out history, the RCC has had some pretty bad "history,"
as have all other "churches," I don't believe you can
logically maintain that a church which for some time
"sold indulgences," etc. can be without error. No
doubt, you will again claim a differentiation between
such self-evident wrongs and "ecumenical," decisions,
but this will not convince many. Some of the history
of the RCC is not a pretty sight, and to think that such
an institution should be relied upon for truth without
severe questioning and rejection of many "doctrines,"
is to my mind just foolish.
Also, many of the rest of us also have "communal,"
interpretations of the Scriptures, such as the historic
Protestant churches. These churches also have their
"skeletons," and are not to be believed without critical
review.
To just rely upon, "succession," is to my mind not very
reliable. When we have the Apostle Peter falling into
error and having the Apostle Paul correct him, even
in the NT times, we can easily see that only when
even the Apostles were under the guidance of the
Holy Spirit, were they "infallible." Hence, I don't
see any reason to believe that the "traditions," that
have come down through the "catholic," churches
are to be received without critical question.
>A private reader can
>always claim, "Such and such a thing means so and so", and then interpret
>everything else in the Bible appropriately in a way that makes it "fit".
Quite true, and in fact this is demonstrated by some here
on this very news group! Although their interpretations
are further out in "left field," than ANY ever proposed by
either the RCC or the OC.
>: All traditions must be of the Word. If they cannot be found in the
>: Word or corroborated by the Word of God then they are traditions,
>: reasoning, writings of men.
>The unfortunate thing is that this claim you are making (that only
>things found in or corroborated by Scripture can be of God) cannot be
>either found in Scripture nor corroborated by it. By your own
>standards, then, it is a tradition, reasoning or writing of men.
Well here I must disagree with you. For I read,
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony:
if they speak not according to this word,
it is because there is no light in them.
This is exactly what Jesus reprimanded the
Jewish leaders of His day about. And, of
course, it is just my opinion, and that of
several millions of other Christians, that
the RCC and the OC do the same thing.
Note that Jesus answered the devil in His
temptations by quoting the word of God.
Also, I have seen you try to substantiate
many of your own doctrines by Scripture
here on this NG. My understanding was
that even the RCC taught that they were
not giving any "new revelations," but
that they were only "confirming," what
has always been taught, quite unlike
what the LSDC teaches.
Sincerely, Gary
g...@iag.net, SEE Trinity vs. Heresy
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/3186/
Ro 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
BUSHBADEE
>
>In other words, if some claim to have authentic Apostolic tradition,
>as 2 Thes 2:15 and other verses indicate exists, how do you decide
>if it is a tradition of man or of God? What is your standard?
>
> -Steve
>--
Steve
You put it well.
That is the point I have been pounding./
When some one quotes me Mark or some other passage which is not in the origonal
NT.
How can they associate what is evidently the word of man with what they believe
is the word of GD.
I do not follow many of these channels.
To answere me address mail to
Bush...@aol.com
Stephen Bayzik
wrote:
>>But on what basis do you tell that the traditions are of men, and not of
>God?
>The yardstick or standard we must always follow and use in cases such as
>this is the Word of God. The bible. For example...I attended a parochail
>school for 12 years. As a child we grew up with a Catholic doctrine (or
>sorts) that we could not eat meat on Fridays. This is a tradition of men.
>We followed this rule/regulation by the book. Friday after Friday. Had we
>had a true understanding of the Word of God we would not have allowed
>ourselves to be held captive to that rule or tradition. You will not find
>that particular command in the Word of God.
>Now if it was a question of "fasting", then we are to be led by the Word and
>the Holy Spirit. Not the dictates of flesh or men.
When I was a mischievous young half civilized adolesant, I always
opted for lobster or schrimp. You must have gone to one strange
parochial school.
BTW, when in parochial grammer school it wasn't the "dictates of men"
it was the good sisters; ie. I had BVM's (Black Veiled Monstors). :-)
Seriously Mary, you do have one grand obsession with this "traditions
of man" nonsense. Lighten up a wee bit - the "divil" wont bite you.
Stephen Bayzik
wrote:
>In soc.religion.christian.bible-study did Alexander R Pruss a stately USENET-post decree:
>: On the other hand, Eastern Orthodoxy does not consider itself capable of
>: holding (infallible) Oecumenical Councils any more, while Catholicism does.
Of course the above statement is not exactly correct. The councils are
General ones of the Western (Latin) Church.
>Says who? There is no reason that the Orthodox could not hold a council
>which was later accepted as Ecumenical. We certainly don't need Rome's
>permission or participation, since she departed from us a long time ago.
Well you tell me the solution. Who has the formal authority to convene
one - the Empire Roman and Holy Roman no longer exist. A wee bit of a
logistic problem - not so?
>: Besides, I think the filioque must be true.
>Then you place yourself under the anathema of the Ecumenical Councils
>which decreed that the Symbol of Faith (the Creed) was not to be altered.
>Even Rome rejected the _filioque_ heresy initially.
True, but then again there were problems in the second Ecumenical
Council vs. the wording of the First and Third.
Come now fellas, are your nicknames should'nt be Leo and Michael.
Let's be honest, we Papist created the "filioque clause" (and I'm sure
Steve understands the historical reasons for its development)
Besides, regarding "anathema", don't you remember what happened in
1965 - unless of course you are at odds with the Patriarchial Seat of
Constantinople? Good Lord are we worried about yeast in the Eucharist,
Beards and all that other stuff? I even went to a Divine Service in a
"Western Orthodox Church" and I heard musical accompaniment - and I
must say it sounded better than the bloody Geetars that we use in
North America.
Stephen Bayzik
>One of the first requirement of "elders," is that they be MARRIED.
>This is the opposite of the RCC doctrine, and it directly contradicts
>the Scriptures. Hence an obvious example of your "traditions," being
>the "traditions of MEN," and against the Commandments of God.
Come now Gary; if you were Jewish I could understand your statement.
Is it a sin to practice celibacy?
You and Mary don't seem to like those "traditions of MEN".
PS. Now Bushbadee, I'll let you have some fun with that statement. :-)
Steve Adams
>>be to obey, unless you are being told to do something against God's
>>Law.
>
>What both you and Alex are saying, that the Christian should follow
>the lead of the elders, is quite true and self evident from the Scriptures,
>BUT the question remains, who are these "elders?" And from the perspective
>of most Protestants they most certainly are NOT the leaders of either
>the OC or the RCC. As I posted in another place to Alex, the Scriptures
>state that the elder must be married.
Gee, my priest would be surprised to hear that Orthodox leaders are
unmarried. So would his wife and two kids. ;-) There are absolutely
no prohibitions against married men being priests, nor any requirement
that those who wish to be clergy practice celibacy (unless they themselves
desire to take that vow - which Paul calls the higher calling). But,
lest I be read wrong, sex outside of marriage is a no-no.
Our bishops are generally chosen from monks, so they are usually
celibate. There is no absolute prohibitiion against married bishops,
and there have been some in various jurisdictions in recent history.
Not a lot, but there have been some.
-Steve
--
The opinions expressed above are those of the author
---NASCAR---In Memoriam---#7-#28-#51---
sad...@mcs.net Soli Deo Gloria Steve Adams
"Space-age cybernomad"
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
Steve Adams
>In <6vtmno$6oj$1...@Jupiter.mcs.net> "Lifesavers" <em...@lifesavers.org> writes:
>
>>had a true understanding of the Word of God we would not have allowed
>>ourselves to be held captive to that rule or tradition. You will not find
>>that particular command in the Word of God.
>
>John asked Christ why his disciples did not fast, he answered:
>
> How can they fast while the bridegroom is with them? But on the day
> when the bridegrom is taken away, on that day they will fast. (Lk 5:34-5)
>
>This is why on Friday, the day when He was taken from us, we fast.
>
>But since one day a week is really not enough fasting, the Orthodox
>add Wednesday as well. Remember that Christ did not say "IF you
>fast", but "WHEN you fast (Mt 6:16)".
Yes, two days a week. The Didache speaks of this (it is an early - most
likely 2nd century - text). But, add to it the Lenten and Advent fasts,
each of which are several weeks long, the Apostles fast, which can
be several weeks long, and a couple of other days her and there, and
Orthodox fast about half the days of the year!
For those who are interested, the Wed/Fri fasts are from all animal
products, wine and olive oil (some groups include all oils). The
"strict" fasts at certain other times dramatically reduce the quantity
of food taken in.
The purpose of this is self-discipline. If you can control your
appetite for food, you can control your appetite for all other kinds
of desires!
And by the way, fasting is not a "strict" discipline in that everyone
must follow the rules exactly - it is a program developed with your
spiritual Father (usually your priest, but not always). He guides
you in it, along with prayer and other disciplines for the purpose of
developing a life of holiness.
Paul knows about this - it is why he says "I buffet my body lest...I
be disqualified." He also tells us to pray unceasingly. Christ
tells us to fast - after he is crucified.
The Desert Fathers had a lot of good things to say about using physicial
discipline to develop spiritual discipline. You can find their
writings in various books, generally from Roman Catholic or Orthodox
publishers, though some Protestant publishers are discovering the
wisdom of these men and women of the 1st millenium.
Steve Adams
>Alexander R Pruss<PRU...@PITT.EDU wrote:
>>Gary (g...@iag.net) wrote:
>>: Now you will no doubt say, but that was a "local,"
>>: condition, and not the church "universal." Well the
>>: problem is that in several instances, for relatively
>>: short periods of time, even the "ecumenical councils,"
>>: erred, and then correct themselves, showing that
>>: even the "universal" church can be in doctrinal error.
>>
>>No ecumenical council has defined a doctrine that a later council has
>>changed. Could you document your claim?
>>
>that the Orthodox church would assert that the RCC CHANGED
>the creed by adding the filoque. I just read your post about this
>and basically agree with your, however I doubt very much that
>Steve would agree! I am sure the Orthodox church sees the RCC
>as changing the previous councils work? Maybe Steve will comment
>on this.
Yes, the OC asserts that Rome, by insisting on inserting the "filioque"
into the Creed without consent of the whole Church, changed the Creed,
the "Symbol of Faith" and as such, changed a formal decree of an
Eccumenical Council without an Eccumenical Council (ie one that calls
on bishops from all 5 ancient Patriarchates).
>Further, Alex, I posted several other posts on this, and specifically,
>the one about church leaders, where the RCC teaches that they
>must be single men, and the Bible teaches that they must be married
>with children.
I hope you have seen my response to this - the Orthodox Church permits
married men to become priests, but also permits celibate men to
become priests as well (which Paul calls the higher calling in
1st Corinthians).
Steve Adams
>>
>>What about Paul? He was celibate.
>
>Paul was an Apostle, not an Elder.
And he made a point to say that married or not, it didn't matter,
and that being celibate was a higher calling. His argument was
that Peter *had the right* to take his wife with him, not that
he had to be married.
>>The Church has _never_ historically
>>banned unmarried persons from the presbyterate.
>
>According to you, thanks, this proves that "the
>church," as defined by you departed from the
>truth quite quickly.
>
>Titus 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest
>set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every
>city, as I had appointed thee:
>6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife,
>having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
>7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward
>of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to
>wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
"One-woman-man" is the best understanding of what "husband of
one wife" means. This by no means is a requirement to marry,
but a requirement that the man should not be serially monogomous
(ie marry-divorce-remarry-divorce-remarry). In general, the
admonition is to not be an adulterer or to otherwise defile
the marriage bed. Again, this must be read with 1 Cor 7:1-9.
See below for more on that.
>1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless,
>the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good
>behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
>1 Timothy 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker,
>not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a
>brawler, not covetous;
>1 Timothy 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house,
>having his children in subjection with all gravity;
Again, the "one-woman-man" statement, not a requirement
to marry (see above). As to the ruling the house
well, it simply says that his children must be in
subjection. There is no command to have children!
Would you say that this verse disqualifies someone
who is incapable of procreating (for whatever reason)?
>Now, Alex, I don't want to get into a big argument
>about this. But note above that in TWO places the
>Scripture states, "husband of one wife." And also
>have children.
Neither of these is commands to marry or have children,
nor do they impose a *requirement* to marry. I challenge
you to show me that Barabus or Titus was married and had
children. Given what we know about them, I suspect they,
like Paul, were "eunuchs for the Kingdom of heaven."
>I don't care that you and your church
>don't do this, I am just pointing out a simple example
>of where your church teaches and practices the
>opposite of what the Scriptures state.
In 1 Cor 7 Paul makes it absolutely clear that he thinks
celibacy/virginity is the *better* state, but that God
gave marriage so that we could have an outlet for our
desires (see 1 Cor 7:1-2). Paul expresses his desire that
all could be celibate like him (see vv. 7 & 9).
You can't simply lift out one teaching of Paul without
reading the other teachings of Paul on the same subject.
Do you think Paul contradicted himself? I don't. But,
if you believe that his letters to Titus and Timothy
require marriage, then you have him contradicting himself!
>My only point is: That God has given each
>of us a brain, and we are to use it. An example
>from Scripture where we are to us it directly
>against the "leaders," is:
Yes, *if* you are commanded by them to go against
God. But you haven't shown that! While I disagree
with the Roman requirement (it is *not* dogma, but
discipline) for celibate clergy, it is not unscriptural.
Certainly, Orthodox clergy are not bound by this rule
and many (I suspect most) parish priests chose to marry
before ordination (marriage or celibacy must be decided
before ordination in the OC).
>29 Then Peter and the other apostles
>answered and said,
>
>We ought to obey God rather than men.
Well, where do you put Paul's letter to the Corinthians?
With God or with men?
>I know you have written on this, (I believe
>it was you),. and said some good things!
>But, many practices of the RCC are such
>that I for one cannot abide them, as I see
>them directly opposed to God. I would
>say the primary example of this is "praying
>to [asking a dead saint to pray] a saint.
How is this different than me asking you to pray for
me? If you and I are both Christians, and part of the
body of Christ, how is it different from me asking
St. Stephen (whom I am named after)to pray for me?
>This, in my mind, makes the saint have
>some of the attributes of God,
What does it mean when it says that we are
created in His image and likeness? What does
it mean when it says "When we see Him, we will
be like Him?"
>i.e. that
>they can hear MANY persons (in their
>thoughts) simultaneously.
You are applying temporal concepts to those
in the heavenlies. I suspect that things are quite
a bit different there. ;-)
>This is not only
>repugnant to me, but downright blasphemous.
Since we are not assigning omniscince or omnipresences
to the saints, how is this so?
>>Actually, priestly celibacy is not a doctrine, but a changeable Church rule
>>(to use technical terms, it is "discipline" not "teaching"). The Church,
>>in her wisdom, sees that in our day and age it is better for priests of
>>the Roman rite to be celibate. This was not possible in the first century
>>because of the lack of celibate candidates. It is a rule that could
>>conceivably be changed (though I think it would be imprudent to change it;
>>it has too many advantages on its side).
>
>Also a couple of disadvantages, in that it directly opposes
>Scripture, and other reasons.
It does not oppose the Scriptures you posted, and if we follow the
usual Evangelical hermeneutic of Scripture interpreting Scripture,
we have to read 1 Cor 7 before we understand Titus 1 & Timothy 3.
Wouldn't you agree?
Despite my disagreements with Alex on several issues (which are
not very interesting to most people who aren't Orthodox or Catholic),
in this case, you are unfairly quoting Scripture without the whole
counsel of Scripture - ie, "proof-texting."
Steve Adams
>To just rely upon, "succession," is to my mind not very
>reliable. When we have the Apostle Peter falling into
>error and having the Apostle Paul correct him, even
>in the NT times, we can easily see that only when
>even the Apostles were under the guidance of the
>Holy Spirit, were they "infallible." Hence, I don't
>see any reason to believe that the "traditions," that
>have come down through the "catholic," churches
>are to be received without critical question.
The Eccumenical Councils were guided by the Holy Spirit,
just as the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15...the prototype
council after which all others were modeled.
>My understanding was
>that even the RCC taught that they were
>not giving any "new revelations," but
>that they were only "confirming," what
>has always been taught, quite unlike
>what the LSDC teaches.
The Councils did not "invent" new doctrine, but were
expresing the faith of the several churches. While
the statements they made may have been "new" it was
only the defense of the doctrine that was new, not
the doctrine itself. The Bishops assembled together to
witness to what their local church believed, and the
consensus of the council reflected their witness.
Steve Adams
>In article <700avg$ln$1...@Jupiter.mcs.net>, sad...@MCS.COM (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>>In other words, if some claim to have authentic Apostolic tradition,
>>as 2 Thes 2:15 and other verses indicate exists, how do you decide
>>if it is a tradition of man or of God? What is your standard?
>>
>Steve
>You put it well.
>That is the point I have been pounding./
Ultimately, everything we think about God comes down to which authority
we trust. It is not enough to say "I trust the Scriptures" for that
does not settle the problem - what do you do when two interpreters
differ?
This is actually a fundamental problem of the typical Evangelical
Protestant method (I am not including Lutherans, Anglicans, etc in
this, since they have a body of collected works that are, at least,
somewhat authoritative). In fact, my old Protestant Church even said
in their Constitution that each church, under the leadership of the
elders, was responsible for deciding what the Bible said! They
actually wrote the "private interpretation" into the Constitution
and insisted that there was no standard except the elders' opinions!
>When some one quotes me Mark or some other passage which is not in the
>origonal NT. How can they associate what is evidently the word of man
>with what they believe is the word of GD.
Why is the word of Paul the word of God, and the word of Ignatius of
Antioch is not? (I'm asking you this - not the group at large - I
want to know why you think they are different).
Steve Adams
>On 12 Oct 1998 14:51:44 -0500, gu...@ncsu.edu (Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick)
>wrote:
>>Says who? There is no reason that the Orthodox could not hold a council
>>which was later accepted as Ecumenical. We certainly don't need Rome's
>>permission or participation, since she departed from us a long time ago.
>
>Well you tell me the solution. Who has the formal authority to convene
>one - the Empire Roman and Holy Roman no longer exist. A wee bit of a
>logistic problem - not so?
Kofi Anan? ;-) Or the President of the EU? ;-) All kidding aside,
this is part of the problem - who would call the council? The
Eccumenical Patriarch (EP), being in Turkey, is in no position to do so
(the Turks are fairly tollerant of the Phenar, but they watch it
like a hawk.) I'd love to see the EP in Moscow - the Third Rome.
I suspect that if enough Bishops called for a counsil, we could
quickly organize one. But again, what pressing issue is at hand
to be discussed? The earlier ones were all over Christological
issues (even the 7th) and there aren't any new Christological hereies!
>Besides, regarding "anathema", don't you remember what happened in
>1965 - unless of course you are at odds with the Patriarchial Seat of
>Constantinople?
Yes - the EP and the Pope lifted their mutual excommunications and
anathemas. ;-) Of course, there are a number of "fundamentalist"
Orthodox who think that the EP who did this was the AntiChrist, but
I digress. ;-)
Rome and Constantinople no longer see each other as anathamized heretics,
but we do not agree, and we are not in communion.
>Good Lord are we worried about yeast in the Eucharist,
Azymes vs. levened bread. What an issue! Oh, and what about
those few drops of water that they use in the Latin rite! ;-)
Ye gads. But these are not the issues that divide us at this
point.
>Beards and all that other stuff?
+Metropolitan PHILIP (my Bishop), does NOT have a beard. He did
try to grow one, but shaved because it looked, well, bad. ;-)
Last I checked, he's still Orthodox!
>I even went to a Divine Service in a
>"Western Orthodox Church" and I heard musical accompaniment -
Ack! Heresy! ;-) Next thing you know they'll want pews! Oh
waith, most Antiochian parishes have them. ;-) We don't have
instruments (and I wouldn't want them), nor pews (and I don't
want them, either). But none of those things divide us from Rome.
>and I
>must say it sounded better than the bloody Geetars that we use in
>North America.
Ah yes, the "Guitar Mass" - designed to bring the youth back to
the Church in the 60's and 70's. I hated them. And I was
young back then. I much prefer organs to guitars. But I
prefer no accompaniment at all - I'm very partial to a capella
singing, Byzantine Chant, etc.
Steve Adams
>From my viewpoint and that of many millions of other Christians
>this "claim," of " unbroken continuity," is not only meaningless,
If we're going to get into a numbers game, the RCC wins hands down. ;-)
But I don't think that's how you meant it.
>but downright not even wanted! When the "links," in a chain are
>corrupt, we don't want to have much to do with the chain. When
>we can look at the doctrines of the RCC and OC and see what
>we believe to be blatant opposition to the Word of God, and
>the Scriptures, we don't even want to associate with such doctrines.
Of course, the question comes down to why you think your personal
interpretation is better than that of the collective mind of the
Church? The whole idea of an "independant" interpreter is a
product of humanist philosophy, and is, in fact, against Scripture.
The Ethiopian knew enough to know that he had to *ask* someone to
teach him. And we also read that the teachings of Scripture are not
open to private interpretation.
How do you know that your interpretation is the right one? Over
and against any other? If you and another individual disagree
on an interpertation, how do you resolve this disagreement?
>I do believe that shortly after (in fact even during) the NT times,
>that many in the church departed from the "faith once delivered
>to the saints," often the most vocal, and powerful, and that they
>introduced false doctrines, which were received to a more or
>less degree by professed Christians.
This is one opinion. The other is that Clement of Rome, Ignatius
of Antioch, Iranaeus of Lyon and Justin Martyr were reflecting the
true despot of faith. Why is your opinion the corret one? I
find nothing in what they write that contradicts the Scriptures.
About 15 years ago, a group of Evangelicals were looking for the
true church. They read the above-mentioned writers, and came
to the conclusion that they were representing the true deposit
of faith. Those Evangelicals formed the "Evangelical Orthodox
Church" and after reading and studying Ignattius, they came to
the conclusion that they had to be in communion with the Orthodox
Church and were united to the Patriarch of Antioch.
I relate this because a few of those men had *exactly* the same
opinion as you, but after reading, praying and comparing it with
Scripture, they came to the same conclusion that I did. Those
men did NOT fall into error and were reflecting the true deposit
of the faith. And it does NOT contradict the Scriptures.
You might object, as I do, to certain Roman claims, but those
developed much later (and are perhaps best left to another
newsgroup).
>You and the RCC and OC equate the true Church of Christ with
>your organizations, but many of us do not. While I would say
>that many in the RCC and OC are regenerate, the RCC and OC
>ORGANIZATIONS do not therefore have a monopoly on being
>true church.
Our ecclesiology differs, yes, but this is not the source of
the problem - the source of the problem is that you believe that
we are unbiblical, based on your interpretations of Scripture.
But why are yours any more valuable or correct than ours?
>We, of course, will never agree on these points. To me it is as
>obvious that the RCC and the OC teach error (as defined by
>the Scriptures) as it is that Christ is LORD.
To Orthodox, it is clear that the heterodox teach error. But that
is not the real point. Again, the real point is that you claim that
Scripture is against us and we disagree - please tell us why we
should accept your understanding over and against the understandings
of the Curch of the first 1000 years? (ie before Rome and the East
split formally.)
mejo...@my-dejanews.com
pru...@pitt.edu (Alexander R Pruss) wrote:
> Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick (gu...@ncsu.edu) wrote:
> : : Besides, I think the filioque must be true.
>
> : Then you place yourself under the anathema of the Ecumenical Councils
> : which decreed that the Symbol of Faith (the Creed) was not to be altered.
> : Even Rome rejected the _filioque_ heresy initially.
>
> (1) The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and
> (2) The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
You are missing the point. Or are you subtly changing the topic to
avoid confronting the grossness of the innovation called the "Filioque"?
A. Damick did not say that you placed yourself under the anathema by
believing the Filioque. He said you placed yourself under the anathema by
changing the Creed to include the Filioque. This is true. The Council of
Constantinople decreed that the Creed formulated at Nicaea was not to be
altered in any way, nor was any new Creed to be composed. Rome chose to
disregard this rule, placing itself under the anathema.
> Since there is no contradiction between the two, by believing the second
> I do not contradict the first.
But by doing so you are playing a subtle and dangerous word game. It is
clear from examining the context of the Fathers's statements on the procession
of the Holy Spirit, that only in the Latin West, and even then only starting
with Augustine, was the Filioque accepted. It is equally clear, and for the
same reason, that when the Greek Fathers said the Spirit proceeds from the
Father, they really did mean that He proceeds from the Father ALONE.
See, for example the letter of St. Basil the Great to his brother Gregory
titled "On the Distinction between Substance and Person (hypostatis)", where
he says: The Holy Spirit is joined to the Son, but by essence depends on
the Father, as from a cause, as He Proceeds from Him (the Father).
> Indeed, I accept both (1) and (2).
> Unless you find a Conciliar statement saying that (2) is a heresy, you
> have no case.
>
> And, of course, we contend that later Catholic Oecumenical Councils have
> defined the filioque, assuming it is to be understood as just another way
> of expressing St John of Damascus' formula that the Holy Spirit proceed
> from the Father through the Son.
And it is this equivocation that so astounds the Orthodox East. For at
Florence, the Latin "Fathers" insisted on speaking of a "dual procession as
one breathing", which can be twisted to fit "procession from the Father
through the Son" only by so severely distorting the meanings of words that we
lose all touch with Trinitarian reality.
Perhaps this is why Catholic spirituality shows so little awareness of the
Trinity, while Orthodox Spirituality shows a deep awareness, as exemplified by
the exclamation of the Deacon just before the Creed is read:
Let us love one another, that we may confess
(then the choir finishes the sentence)
Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Trinity, one in essence
and indivisible!
>
> Everything that the Father has, He has given to the Son. The Father has
> the procession of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Son has it too, albeit
> derivatively.
This is an excellent example of the sort of equivocation I am talking about.
As St. John of Damascus explains in The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox
Faith, there is a difference between the things that the Father HAS, and the
things that the Father IS. The things he HAS, he has given to the Son. But
there is one thing that he IS, that he has NOT given to the Son; that is that
he is Father. But both the Father's generation of the Son, and the Father's
procession of the Holy Spirit, are that He is FATHER; it is a work of nature,
not of energy. So the procession of the Holy Spirit is NOT given to the Son.
Perhaps you Latins would have understood this if you hadn't waited until the
19th century to start paying attention to the distinction in Byzantine
theology between attributes and energies.
Matthew Johnson
Ex Oriente Lux!
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
BUSHBADEE
>roduct of humanist philosophy, and is, in fact, against Scripture.
>The Ethiopian knew enough to know that he had to *ask* someone to
>teach him. And we also read that the teachings of Scripture are not
>open to private interpretation.
Is that the Etheiopean the Paul met and was his first convert.
The one who was reading Isaiah and some idiots could not concieve that He was
Jewish.
I do not follow many of these channels.
To answere me address mail to
Bush...@aol.com
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
Alexander R Pruss
: I do believe that shortly after (in fact even during) the NT times,
: that many in the church departed from the "faith once delivered
: to the saints," often the most vocal, and powerful, and that they
: introduced false doctrines, which were received to a more or
: less degree by professed Christians.
Yet, Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail over
the Church, that the Paraclete would lead us to all truth, and Paul
tells us that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
Alex
--
Alexander R. Pruss || e-mail: pru...@pitt.edu
Graduate Student || home page: http://www.pitt.edu/~pruss
Department of Philosophy || alternate e-mail address: pr...@member.ams.org
University of Pittsburgh || Erdos number: 4
Pittsburgh, PA 15260 ||
U.S.A. ||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Philosophiam discimus non ut tantum sciamus, sed ut boni efficiamur."
- Paul of Worczyn (1424)
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
Alexander R Pruss
: Titus 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest
: set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every
: city, as I had appointed thee:
: 6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife,
: having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
Given that both Paul and Jesus think celibacy is better, it would be
funny if Paul made not being celibate a requirement for Christian leaders--
it would be requiring that they be chosen from among those who have the
less good (though still very good) vocation! I interpret Tit. 1:6 as
condition: if he is married, then only to one wife (how can one be married
to more than one? well, if one wife dies, and he takes another), and if
he has children, then they must be faithful and not accused of riot or
unruly. Note how in 1 Tim. 3:4, Paul gives an explanation of what he
says about children: If a man doesn't take good care of his household,
then he won't take good care of the Church. This explanation however
only works on my conditional reading, since the explanation only works
on the _assumption_ that the man has a household.
Your interpretation makes these Pauline sayings conflict largely with
Paul's sayings about the superiority of celibacy. The Church's interpretation
(both in the East and in the West, since the Eastern Church fully acknowledges
that there is no _requirement_ for priests to be married) has no such conflict.
Jesus and Paul were in every sense elders of the Church--and yet neither was
married (except to the Church, the way that Catholic priests are). He who
appoints elders is even more of an elder than those who are appointed.
Steve Adams
>In article <7017pv$q0i$1...@Venus.mcs.net>, sad...@MCS.COM (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>>roduct of humanist philosophy, and is, in fact, against Scripture.
>>The Ethiopian knew enough to know that he had to *ask* someone to
>>teach him. And we also read that the teachings of Scripture are not
>>open to private interpretation.
>
>Is that the Etheiopean the Paul met and was his first convert.
>The one who was reading Isaiah and some idiots could not concieve that He was
>Jewish.
This was Phillip, who spoke with the Ethiopian. See Acts 8 for details.
Basically, the Ethiopian asked who Isaiah was talking about and Phillip
explained it to him.
-Steve
--
The opinions expressed above are those of the author
---NASCAR---In Memoriam---#7-#28-#51---
sad...@mcs.net Soli Deo Gloria Steve Adams
"Space-age cybernomad"
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
Alexander R Pruss
: pru...@pitt.edu (Alexander R Pruss) writes:
: >Moreover, I take the Eastern
: >Orthodox practice of permitting (penitential) remarriage when the first
: >spouse is still alive to be a clear contradiction of Jesus' teaching on
: >divorce.
: And this differs from the Roman Catholic "anulment" how?
Annulments are granted only when it has been determined that the first
alleged marriage was _never_ a marriage, because one of the criteria
for a marriage was not met at the time of the marriage ceremony or because
there never was a sexual consummation. The criteria are:
1. consent to the marriage (marriage vows) being made by the couple
2. freedom in the consent
3. the consent being expressed (except in emergency situations or when
neither member of the couple is Catholic) in front of a clergyman and
two other witnesses
4. the couple having sufficient knowledge:
(a) of the requirement of openness to children,
(b) of the fidelity required in marriage, and
(c) of the sexual nature of the marriage contract.
5. the couple not being too closely related (i.e., the relationship
not being incestuous).
There a few other canonical requirements (e.g., that neither person had
killed his own or the other's previous spouse, that neither is a cleric
(dispensations are possible, though for clerics in exceptional circumstances)
or bound by a public vow of celibacy), but these are the basic ones. If
these requirements are met, and the marriage is consummated sexually, then
no power on earth can dissolve the marriage. If the requirements are
not met, then a marriage has never taken place--the couple were never
married. (But the children of the supposed marriage are legitimate,
because as far as the couple knew, there was a marriage, and so there was
no guilt of sin in their sexual relations, as they _thought_ they were
married.)
It is my understanding that the Eastern Orthodox practice is something
a little different, that the Eastern Orthodox think a marriage can die.
We take a marriage, once it takes place, to be indissoluble. If all the
criteria were met in the first place, the annulment tribunal will simply
reject the petition for the annulment.
: >But really I think we do not need to discuss all this in this thread, since
: >presumably we agree on the value of Tradition, and we agree that there is
: >no option _other_ than Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, and that was all
: >I was trying to argue.
: In that I agree - there is no other valid option. We disagree on who
: has the better claim. Perhaps, one day, Rome and the East will
: achieve communion...but the differences are still to great.
I have hopes for such a day. Paul says that one day the Jewish people
will come to Christ. If God can arrange _that_, He can surely also bring
the East and West together again. But who knows. Maybe we'll only be
in communion in the afterlife.
--
Alexander R. Pruss || e-mail: pru...@pitt.edu
Graduate Student || home page: http://www.pitt.edu/~pruss
Department of Philosophy || alternate e-mail address: pr...@member.ams.org
University of Pittsburgh || Erdos number: 4
Pittsburgh, PA 15260 ||
U.S.A. ||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Philosophiam discimus non ut tantum sciamus, sed ut boni efficiamur."
- Paul of Worczyn (1424)
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
Alexander R Pruss
: I don't believe you can
: logically maintain that a church which for some time
: "sold indulgences," etc. can be without error.
There is a difference between doctrinal error and poor practice of
the doctrine. Remember what Jesus says in Matthew, that we should
listen to the Scribes and Pharisees and do what they say because
they sit in the seat of Moses, but that we should not imitate what
they do, because they do not practice what they preach. Selling
indulgences was like that: it was a practice contrary to the preaching.
The Church has always taught that requiring money for spiritual
benefits is morally wrong--the sin of this even has special name:
"simony" (named after Simon Magus in Acts who wanted to pay money
to have the power to confer the Holy Spirit).
ALex
Alexander R Pruss
: I have heard this before but never investigated. Where can I find biblical
: evidence that Paul was celibate?
When Paul talks about how celibacy is better, he says "I wish everyone
could be like me". 1 Cor. 7:7 and following make it rather clear that
he is celibate (though some claim that what it says is compatible with
the idea that he is widowed). In any case, the clear statements from
Paul and Jesus that celibacy is better would make ridiculous any idea
that Christian leaders must be (or have been) married! Plus, Jesus Himself
would be in violation!
Alex
--
Alexander R. Pruss || e-mail: pru...@pitt.edu
Graduate Student || home page: http://www.pitt.edu/~pruss
Department of Philosophy || alternate e-mail address: pr...@member.ams.org
University of Pittsburgh || Erdos number: 4
Pittsburgh, PA 15260 ||
U.S.A. ||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Philosophiam discimus non ut tantum sciamus, sed ut boni efficiamur."
- Paul of Worczyn (1424)
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
Bart Goddard
>
> Gary (g...@iag.net) wrote:
> : I don't believe you can
> : logically maintain that a church which for some time
> : "sold indulgences," etc. can be without error.
>
> There is a difference between doctrinal error and poor practice of
> the doctrine. Remember what Jesus says in Matthew, that we should
> listen to the Scribes and Pharisees and do what they say because
> they sit in the seat of Moses, but that we should not imitate what
> they do, because they do not practice what they preach. Selling
> indulgences was like that: it was a practice contrary to the
> preaching.
There are two things wrong with this. Second, the clergy
_were_ preaching the selling of indulgences, so the Matthew
example doesn't apply. First, we again hit the great
RC contradiction. Sometimes you make a distinction
between the bureaucracy and the Church (like whenever
the Inquisition or the selling of indulgences comes up)
but other times you don't (like whenever the bureaucracy
declares doctrine by fiat) and declare them to be equal.
You can't have it both ways. If a priest preaches the
selling of indulgences, then either 1. The Church
is teaching the selling of indulgence or 2. Not all
actions of the clergy are actions of the Church, in
which case all actions of the clergy are open for
scrutiny against a higher authority.
Bart
BJWakeland
In article <702h9i$dr8$1...@Jupiter.mcs.net>, pru...@pitt.edu (Alexander R Pruss)
writes:
>Gary (g...@iag.net) wrote:
>: I do believe that shortly after (in fact even during) the NT times,
>: that many in the church departed from the "faith once delivered
>: to the saints," often the most vocal, and powerful, and that they
>: introduced false doctrines, which were received to a more or
>: less degree by professed Christians.
>
>Yet, Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail over
>the Church, that the Paraclete would lead us to all truth, and Paul
>tells us that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
>
Therefore, even though the primitive church fell into apostacy for many
centuries, the gates of Hell did not prevail and will never prevail.
CTR
Bob
Gerry Palo
Bart Goddard <Bart_G...@tamu-commerce.edu> wrote:
>Alexander R Pruss wrote:
>> There is a difference between doctrinal error and poor practice of
>> the doctrine. Remember what Jesus says in Matthew, that we should
>> listen to the Scribes and Pharisees and do what they say because
>> they sit in the seat of Moses, but that we should not imitate what
>> they do, because they do not practice what they preach. Selling
>> indulgences was like that: it was a practice contrary to the
>> preaching.
-
>There are two things wrong with this. Second, the clergy
>_were_ preaching the selling of indulgences, so the Matthew
>example doesn't apply. First, we again hit the great
>RC contradiction. Sometimes you make a distinction
>between the bureaucracy and the Church (like whenever
>the Inquisition or the selling of indulgences comes up)
>but other times you don't (like whenever the bureaucracy
>declares doctrine by fiat) and declare them to be equal.
-
>You can't have it both ways. If a priest preaches the
>selling of indulgences, then either 1. The Church
>is teaching the selling of indulgence or 2. Not all
>actions of the clergy are actions of the Church, in
>which case all actions of the clergy are open for
>scrutiny against a higher authority.
I don't think this will do. Jesus said to do what they say, not because
what they say is right but because they sit in the seat of Moses. It is a
call to be obedient, not an endorsement of what they are saying. In this
case, given that the Roman Catholic Church assumes for Christians the
equivalent of the seat of Moses, the duty of the Christian during the
time of indulgences would be to follow the commands of the priests in
that regard. There is at least some scriptural validation for the
principle that the Christian is to be obedient to authority. Now, I
don't have any intention of submitting myself to the Church of Rome, and
if I, in my present state of consciousness, were a Christian in Luther's
time, I would no doubt join the Reformation. But it does seem that what
Jesus was saying to his Jewish listeners was, obey the authorities
because they have the authority, but don't immitate them. I do not
believe that this admonishment is a general one that was meant to be
taken for all times and places or that it applies today, certainly not to
the leadership of the Catholic Church. But if it did apply, then it
would imply obedience to the commands of the priests.
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Gerry Palo Denver, Colorado
pa...@netcom.com
Stephen Bayzik
>In article <6vu14u$a8q$1...@Jupiter.mcs.net>, pru...@pitt.edu (Alexander R Pruss)
>writes:
>>What about Paul? He was celibate. The Church has _never_ historically
>>banned unmarried persons from the presbyterate.
>I have heard this before but never investigated. Where can I find biblical
>evidence that Paul was celibate?
With his attitude toward women who would marry him? :-)
Stephen Bayzik
wrote:
>: All traditions must be of the Word. If they cannot be found in the
>: Word or corroborated by the Word of God then they are traditions,
>: resonsings, writings of men.
>The unfortunate thing is that this claim you are making (that only
>things found in or corroborated by Scripture can be of God) cannot be
>either found in Scripture nor corroborated by it. By your own
>standards, then, it is a tradition, reasoning or writing of men.
Alex; you let the cat out of the bag. Protestants have traditions. :-)
Stephen Bayzik
>>Moreover, I take the Eastern Orthodox practice of permitting (penitential)
>> remarriage when the first spouse is still alive to be a clear contradiction
>> of Jesus' teaching on divorce.
>And this differs from the Roman Catholic "anulment" how?
Good point Steve. "Anulment" as it is practiced in many parts of the
Roman Catholic Church is but an example of hypocrisy and
circumlocution. Understandable considering the "huge infastructure"
with over 950 million members - but nonetheless correctly perceived as
hypocrisy; especially as granted in affluent western nations.
Stephen Bayzik
wrote:
>BJWakeland (bjwak...@aol.com) wrote:
>: I have heard this before but never investigated. Where can I find biblical
>: evidence that Paul was celibate?
>When Paul talks about how celibacy is better, he says "I wish everyone
>could be like me". 1 Cor. 7:7
Sorry about this, but I just couldn't help the thought. Tongue and
cheek:-
"But he was an ugly little fellow. ;-)
Alexander R Pruss
: You can't have it both ways. If a priest preaches the
: selling of indulgences, then either 1. The Church
: is teaching the selling of indulgence or 2. Not all
: actions of the clergy are actions of the Church, in
: which case all actions of the clergy are open for
: scrutiny against a higher authority.
A priest does not a Church make. We do have carefully defined criteria
as to what constitutes the _Church_ as teaching (e.g., unanimous agreement
of the bishops, or a Church Council, or the Pope preaching _qua_ Pope, or
a constant Tradition).
Alex
--
Alexander R. Pruss || e-mail: pru...@pitt.edu
Graduate Student || home page: http://www.pitt.edu/~pruss
Department of Philosophy || alternate e-mail address: pr...@member.ams.org
University of Pittsburgh || Erdos number: 4
Pittsburgh, PA 15260 ||
U.S.A. ||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Philosophiam discimus non ut tantum sciamus, sed ut boni efficiamur."
- Paul of Worczyn (1424)
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
Alexander R Pruss
: Therefore, even though the primitive church fell into apostacy for many
: centuries, the gates of Hell did not prevail and will never prevail.
If the primitive Church fell into apostasy, then how could you possibly
know what the canon of Scripture is, since that canon was determined
by the early Church? (And not all that early, either, but around the
4th century.)
Alexander R Pruss
: In article <702vbv$hvj$1...@Jupiter.mcs.net>,
: >> There is a difference between doctrinal error and poor practice of
: >> the doctrine. Remember what Jesus says in Matthew, that we should
: >> listen to the Scribes and Pharisees and do what they say because
: >> they sit in the seat of Moses, but that we should not imitate what
: >> they do, because they do not practice what they preach. Selling
: >> indulgences was like that: it was a practice contrary to the
: >> preaching.
: -
: >There are two things wrong with this. Second, the clergy
: >_were_ preaching the selling of indulgences, so the Matthew
: >example doesn't apply. First, we again hit the great
: >RC contradiction. Sometimes you make a distinction
: >between the bureaucracy and the Church (like whenever
: >the Inquisition or the selling of indulgences comes up)
: >but other times you don't (like whenever the bureaucracy
: >declares doctrine by fiat) and declare them to be equal.
: -
: >You can't have it both ways. If a priest preaches the
: >selling of indulgences, then either 1. The Church
: >is teaching the selling of indulgence or 2. Not all
: >actions of the clergy are actions of the Church, in
: >which case all actions of the clergy are open for
: >scrutiny against a higher authority.
: I don't think this will do. Jesus said to do what they say, not because
: what they say is right but because they sit in the seat of Moses. It is a
: call to be obedient, not an endorsement of what they are saying. In this
: case, given that the Roman Catholic Church assumes for Christians the
: equivalent of the seat of Moses, the duty of the Christian during the
: time of indulgences would be to follow the commands of the priests in
: that regard. There is at least some scriptural validation for the
: principle that the Christian is to be obedient to authority. Now, I
: don't have any intention of submitting myself to the Church of Rome, and
: if I, in my present state of consciousness, were a Christian in Luther's
: time, I would no doubt join the Reformation. But it does seem that what
: Jesus was saying to his Jewish listeners was, obey the authorities
: because they have the authority, but don't immitate them. I do not
: believe that this admonishment is a general one that was meant to be
: taken for all times and places or that it applies today, certainly not to
: the leadership of the Catholic Church. But if it did apply, then it
: would imply obedience to the commands of the priests.
And let me add that the priests did not _command_ people to buy
indulgences, though some highly encouraged it, even to the point
of false advertising (isn't that something we Americans know about?)
Bart Goddard
> >You can't have it both ways. If a priest preaches the
> >selling of indulgences, then either 1. The Church
> >is teaching the selling of indulgence or 2. Not all
> >actions of the clergy are actions of the Church, in
> >which case all actions of the clergy are open for
> >scrutiny against a higher authority.
>
> I don't think this will do. Jesus said to do what they
> say, not because what they say is right but because they
> sit in the seat of Moses. It is a call to be obedient,
> not an endorsement of what they are saying. ....
> But if it did apply, then it
> would imply obedience to the commands of the priests.
Just put "seat of Moses" in for "Church" throughout
my argument and I think it still holds. Is the
RC bureaucracy sitting in the seat of Moses and
thereby desecrating it with various wicked works,
or is the true seat of Moses a more spiritual thing
that the RC can't lay claim to.
'm thinking here of the usual argument of the RC
against Protestantism. Namely, "You think the Bible
is the inspired Word and the ultimate authority, but
look at where the Bible comes from. It was the Church
that determined the canon, and therefore the Church
has authority over how to interpret Scripture."
I agree with their statement thus far. It's when they
claim that the RC is the Church that their argument falls
apart. The canon was put together 400 years before the
Roman biship declared himself the Papa. So I think my
argument still stands. The contradiction is either
1. The RC is sitting in the seat of Moses and contradicting
him (by selling indulgences and inquisting (?) Jews) or
2. The RC is not sitting in the seat of Moses.
Bart
Bart Goddard
> A priest does not a Church make.
Exactly. So how's a person in the pew supposed to
know when the priest/bishop/pope/collection of
bishops is acting as the Church and when it's not.
When we say "Inquisition", you say "that wasn't
the Church." When we say "canon" you say "that
was the Church."
> We do have carefully defined criteria as to what
> constitutes the _Church_
So the bureaucracy has defined some rules to say
when the bureaucracy is the Church?
bart
Stephen Bayzik
wrote:
>There is a difference between doctrinal error and poor practice of
>the doctrine. Remember what Jesus says in Matthew, that we should
>listen to the Scribes and Pharisees and do what they say because
>they sit in the seat of Moses, but that we should not imitate what
>they do, because they do not practice what they preach. Selling
>indulgences was like that: it was a practice contrary to the preaching.
>The Church has always taught that requiring money for spiritual
>benefits is morally wrong--the sin of this even has special name:
>"simony" (named after Simon Magus in Acts who wanted to pay money
>to have the power to confer the Holy Spirit).
An excellent answer Alex. But just one point.
>but that we should not imitate what they do, because they do not
> practice what they preach.
A wee bit of an exageration on the part of the author(s) of the
canonical Matthewian Gospel. Judge not least ye be judged looking into
the mirror - not so?
Stephen Bayzik
<Bart_G...@tamu-commerce.edu> wrote:
>You can't have it both ways. If a priest preaches the
>selling of indulgences, then either 1. The Church
>is teaching the selling of indulgence or 2. Not all
>actions of the clergy are actions of the Church, in
>which case all actions of the clergy are open for
>scrutiny against a higher authority.
Ah, but Bart; in life many a time we do have it "both ways".
I am sure that Providence has provided that the world unfolds as it
should despite all our protestations. :-)
Stephen Bayzik
wrote:
>>Hi,
>>Your statement above is contradictory. You say don't follow leaders but
>>then you say "follow what you know to be right - study the bible. Your
>>1st statement contradicts the next. It is impossible to study the bible
>>and do what the Lord commands and then not to follow the leaders He
>>places in His body. We are to submit one to another. Christ's body has
>>a structure - has a governing body. It is in Ephesians 4:8-14.
>Of course, this is only true if you accept that Paul was speaking for Jesus.
>Did Jesus himself ever advocate a new institutional Church? Even if one
>draws an inference from something he said, there is definitely no details
>regarding its structure.
Did Jesus himself ever advocate a new institutional Church? Good
question, but it is more of a rhetorical one, not so?
We don't know what Jesus did or did not advocate; He (whoever that be)
never left us any of his thoughts in some publication. However, we do
know the He (whoever he be) was the central figure around which a
weltanslung arose and an "institutional Church". To be sure one can
make a case for Christianity and the institutional Church being a
product of Paul's leadership and thoughts; but in pragmatic terms
Providence has seen fit in historical development for an institutional
Church, as well as denominations to exist.
Go argue with reality.
BJWakeland
In article <7055m5$11q$1...@Jupiter.mcs.net>, pru...@pitt.edu (Alexander R Pruss)
writes:
>BJWakeland (bjwak...@aol.com) wrote:
>: Therefore, even though the primitive church fell into apostacy for many
>: centuries, the gates of Hell did not prevail and will never prevail.
>
>If the primitive Church fell into apostasy, then how could you possibly
>know what the canon of Scripture is, since that canon was determined
>by the early Church? (And not all that early, either, but around the
>4th century.)
That's the whole point. We don't know what the original canon consisted of.
The canon has been tampered with several times. Some books are in the
Douay-Rheims translation that were left out of the King James version. The
Revelation of St John the Divine was added at a fairly late date replacing the
Book of Enoch which was there previously.
What is commonly referred to as "the Early Church" was already apostate
just a few years after the disappearance of the Apostles. In fact, it started
while some were still alive. That's why Paul and Peter and James and John worte
those letters. They were ftying to preach and teach a Church that was already
falling away from the teachings of Jesus.
Those weren't Sunday School type letters, they were admonitions and
warnings to the Saiints who were already losing the Gospel and the Priesthood
authority.
The Biblical writings we accept as canonical are those that have been
handed down to us through the ages and are commonly accepted as being inspired.
That's all we have to go with.
We have to make do with a combination of what we accept as canonical in the
Bible plus other scriptures as they are revealed to us. (No, I don't think the
canon is closed).
CTR
Bob
Steve Adams
>: pru...@pitt.edu (Alexander R Pruss) writes:
>: >Moreover, I take the Eastern
>: >Orthodox practice of permitting (penitential) remarriage when the first
>: >spouse is still alive to be a clear contradiction of Jesus' teaching on
>: >divorce.
>
>: And this differs from the Roman Catholic "anulment" how?
>
>alleged marriage was _never_ a marriage, because one of the criteria
>for a marriage was not met at the time of the marriage ceremony or because
>there never was a sexual consummation. The criteria are:
<<snip>>
OK. That's the "official" teaching - but I personally know of Roman
Catholics who received annulments even though they clearly and freely
had given consent, a church wedding, several children and not too
closely related. They made it clear to anyone who asks that an
annulment is, effectively, pro-forma these days for anyone who wants
one. There have certainly been high-profile cases like this, as
well.
>It is my understanding that the Eastern Orthodox practice is something
>a little different, that the Eastern Orthodox think a marriage can die.
>We take a marriage, once it takes place, to be indissoluble. If all the
>criteria were met in the first place, the annulment tribunal will simply
>reject the petition for the annulment.
Actually, no, Orthodox do not think the marriage can die. What they say
is that an ecclesiastical divorce is granted as "ekonomia" - that is,
for the purpose of aiding in the individuals salvation. It is up to
the presiding bishop to grant or deny ecclesiastical divorce, based on
what he feels is best in the situtation.
>: >But really I think we do not need to discuss all this in this thread, since
>: >presumably we agree on the value of Tradition, and we agree that there is
>: >no option _other_ than Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, and that was all
>: >I was trying to argue.
>
>: In that I agree - there is no other valid option. We disagree on who
>: has the better claim. Perhaps, one day, Rome and the East will
>: achieve communion...but the differences are still to great.
>
>I have hopes for such a day. Paul says that one day the Jewish people
>will come to Christ. If God can arrange _that_, He can surely also bring
>the East and West together again. But who knows. Maybe we'll only be
>in communion in the afterlife.
I hope not...there is far too much division in Christendom - the Church
was meant to be one.
-Steve
--
The opinions expressed above are those of the author
---NASCAR---In Memoriam---#7-#28-#51---
sad...@mcs.net Soli Deo Gloria Steve Adams
"Space-age cybernomad"
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
Vance McAlister
Stephen Bayzik wrote in message <705n8l$623$1...@Jupiter.mcs.net>...
>>Of course, this is only true if you accept that Paul was speaking for
Jesus.
>>Did Jesus himself ever advocate a new institutional Church? Even if one
>>draws an inference from something he said, there is definitely no details
>>regarding its structure.
>
>Did Jesus himself ever advocate a new institutional Church? Good
>question, but it is more of a rhetorical one, not so?
>
>We don't know what Jesus did or did not advocate; He (whoever that be)
>never left us any of his thoughts in some publication. However, we do
>know the He (whoever he be) was the central figure around which a
>weltanslung arose and an "institutional Church". To be sure one can
>make a case for Christianity and the institutional Church being a
>product of Paul's leadership and thoughts; but in pragmatic terms
>Providence has seen fit in historical development for an institutional
>Church, as well as denominations to exist.
>
>Go argue with reality.
You know, this concept of God controlling the historical development of the
Church to provide a vehicle for his message to be delivered, etc, was
discussed in another part of this thread in some detail. I never did get a
response to my last post in that discussion. The only thing I would add to
that position is that this entire thread seems to make my point for me.
(see my other post of 10/9).
Gerry Palo
Bart Goddard <Bart_G...@tamu-commerce.edu> wrote:
>'m thinking here of the usual argument of the RC
>against Protestantism. Namely, "You think the Bible
>is the inspired Word and the ultimate authority, but
>look at where the Bible comes from. It was the Church
>that determined the canon, and therefore the Church
>has authority over how to interpret Scripture."
>
>I agree with their statement thus far. It's when they
>claim that the RC is the Church that their argument falls
>apart. The canon was put together 400 years before the
>Roman biship declared himself the Papa. So I think my
>argument still stands. The contradiction is either
>1. The RC is sitting in the seat of Moses and contradicting
>him (by selling indulgences and inquisting (?) Jews) or
>2. The RC is not sitting in the seat of Moses.
I agree that the Church is something much more than the Roman Catholic
Church. I do think that the same Holy Spirit that was at work inspiring
the writers of the New Testament was also at work in the early Church, in
spite of its imperfections. But I also find no valid claim for Rome's
authority today, although it too should not be lightly dismissed in all
things. In fact, we are in an age where the whole principle of authority
begins to shift to the individual himself, and along with it the burden
and responsibility for discerning the truth and acting upon it. As
George Fox put it, "Jesus Christ is come to teach his people himself."
This marks a change from the previous era. The time is come to learn to
worship in spirit and in truth. Already when the Reformers turned
directly to scripture and their (and the individual Christian's) own
capacity to understand it the new age had already begun. It is a part of
Christian humanity's transition from childhood to adulthood. The
endless debate about ultimate external authority is a kind of wavering
at the threshold. It is understandable, but something that must
eventually give way to affirmation of the new impulse, or else result in
a sliding back into submission to a tyranical authority that has lost
both the wisdom and compassion that it once had.
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Gerry Palo Denver, Colorado
pa...@netcom.com
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
Alexander R Pruss
: I agree with their statement thus far. It's when they
: claim that the RC is the Church that their argument falls
: apart. The canon was put together 400 years before the
: Roman biship declared himself the Papa.
The term "papa" is just a term.
By the time the canon was defined (4th cen.), we can see very clearly a
number of the doctrines that Protestants object to. Plus, it seems
implausible to suppose that we can be absolutely certain that the Church
was all fine and orthodox until the 4th century, and then it fell.
: So I think my
: argument still stands. The contradiction is either
: 1. The RC is sitting in the seat of Moses and contradicting
: him (by selling indulgences and inquisting (?) Jews) or
: 2. The RC is not sitting in the seat of Moses.
But the people Jesus talked about did this kind of thing, too: according
to their preaching they should have done one thing, but did another. This
is what happened in the case at hand. The Gospel of love and self-denial
was preached--but not lived.
--
Alexander R. Pruss || e-mail: pru...@pitt.edu
Graduate Student || home page: http://www.pitt.edu/~pruss
Department of Philosophy || alternate e-mail address: pr...@member.ams.org
University of Pittsburgh || Erdos number: 4
Pittsburgh, PA 15260 ||
U.S.A. ||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Philosophiam discimus non ut tantum sciamus, sed ut boni efficiamur."
- Paul of Worczyn (1424)
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
Alexander R Pruss
: Alexander R Pruss wrote:
: > A priest does not a Church make.
: Exactly. So how's a person in the pew supposed to
: know when the priest/bishop/pope/collection of
: bishops is acting as the Church and when it's not.
In practice, it's not that hard, you know.
Alex