Posted on 07/15/2015 5:31:40 AM PDT by Gamecock
The canon of scripture is closed, so not now. But it certainly was used; absolutely no question about that. Today Holy Tradition (as opposed to "tradition") among other functions, helps us understand scripture.
Ok, fine.
The Southern Baptists don't call it "hiring", but they do often also (or at least used to) supply a residence for whomever it was who was called, and that man's wife & children, if any.
Can you step away from all the rest which followed long enough to see not only what I was saying, but to then compare things --- as compared to Scripture also?
Can you point me to which post in this thread where this question has been addressed to an extent?
Having been raised Baptist, but now being United Methodist, I’ve seen both the ‘independent local church’ concept and the ‘regional bishop’ concept at work.
There is nothing equivalent to a metropolitan in either system. Baptists certainly don’t have anything beyond the authority of the local church pastor as a guide for any individual church. Southern Baptists have the convention, but that really exerts no authority at all over local churches. Those churches are free to enter or leave the association at will and any number of times. It is basically a cooperative arrangement for missions and Christian education, but even that is entirely voluntary.
The Methodists are, I think, an effort to mirror the Anglican system, which they didn’t do a bad job of, except there is no equivalent to the Archbishop of Canterbury. In other words, there is no ‘bishop of bishops’.
Our bishops are over a geographic region (that we call a conference) much larger than a city, and their hold is important regarding placement of ministers in churches, but beyond that, the region is normally so many churches that they lose any ability truly to provide any kind of direction. Our ‘district superintendents’ might be a better parallel to a metropolitan in that they are generally centered on a major city in a smaller area within the bishops geographic region, but their authority is limited, dependent on a bishop to react to a district superintendent’s concerns.
Beyond that, we have no authority that seems to have the authority to enforce our doctrine and principles.
In that regard, I appreciate the Orthodox churches. They strike me as much more faithful.
The advantage of the Baptist churches, of course, is that the people definitely are the enforcers of their beliefs, and a pastor can be out on his ear if he goes astray from the doctrine of the people. For the most part, this is a good thing if there is a knowledgeable people. That isn’t always the case, though.
Thanks for sharing this.
Since you've told us how ROME does it; it would be moot to tell you any different.
You just keep believing what you're told and all will go well with you.
No need for you to contend for the faith; ONCE given to all the saints.
Luke 16:29
But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.'
The Mormons don't.
However; a stipend is given for expenses.
And PP releases tissue material for DONATIONS; too.
The Mormons sure don't think so!!
The Articles of Faith outline 13 basic points of belief of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The Prophet Joseph Smith first wrote them in a letter to John Wentworth, a newspaper editor,
in response to Mr. Wentworth's request to know what members of the Church believed.
They were subsequently published in Church periodicals.
They are now regarded as scripture and included in the Pearl of Great Price.
THE ARTICLES OF FAITH
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS History of the Church, Vol. 4, pp. 535541
Joseph Smith |
Ok, so the Jews are right.....throw out the NT completely since they are not Moses and the prophets.
There's a lot of charm to that arrangement. Many advantage come readily to mind, long before contemplation of the likes of Rowan Williams.
After more discussion you had included the following charitable remark;
Even the "patriarchs" are (theoretically, anyway) not beyond some degree of correction in that system, I take it.
A guy (a bishop, metropolitan, even an archbishop) can (could?) always just apologize, and admit to being in error on some point or another, and if that not be as for change of doctrine -- which statements they naturally enough leave well enough alone, for the most part, then not need be embarrassed beyond recovery and continuance in the position.
It does take that, and a plurality of deacons who have enough education to support one another and whomever is called as pastor.
That's the down-side. The ill-effects could be (possibly) direct and immediate.
Cutting out the middle-men, so to speak, does leave the people of the church holding the bag -- right away.
I must confess though, that I'm not 'Southern Baptist', and was speaking to the best of my own knowledge about the way they go about things. I hope that I have not misrepresented any facts that I presented as such, while also venturing some amount of opinion not intended to be taken as well established, objective fact.
“Can you step away from all the rest which followed long enough to see not only what I was saying, but to then compare things -— as compared to Scripture also?”
I thought I did. I suppose all I can add is that we do things the way we have always and everywhere done things. Your ecclesiology is different. In all honesty what you do makes no difference to me. It’s not my place to tell Baptists how to run their communities.
Orthodoxy is here in the West to be seen if people want to look. If people come and don’t like what they see, we tell them that’s fine and offer them another piece of baklava.
Otherwise, my answer is what xzins said.
Ask the Catholic 'experts'.
(This IS the connection you wanted me to make; isn't it?)
Are not Catholics fond of saying:
Why don't you BELIEVE the words of Jesus??
No, you didn't..
What you did was the above boasting. Which is not altogether accurate, but does have a lot of truth to it. But as much truth as pride? ...is another story.
Then again, even in "church" men have most often been proud and boastful, and that boast often not being truly Christ, or perhaps better said, not Christ ---- alone.
What did he say -- to what?
Nevermind, prideful one.
I don't CARE all that much for your opinion. Really. Go have another piece of baklava.
+ St. Isaac the Syrian
Good advice.
How would that apply to those Orthodox, that although they may not speak openly (and entirely) of the RCC as the being the 'Great Whore', do seem to apply that principle to pretty much all so-called "Protestants", deriding them as "her daughters"?
When the Orthodox more entirely clear more of that type of thinking out from among themselves (I think *they* do make efforts to do so, some of them anyway), then just maybe there could be wider agreement, rather than (oftentimes hidden, but still rather secretly well-nourished) bitterness, anger, and quarrel.
Or is it that; only a select few are allowed to not only contend for their faith, but dare to attempt discussion and open comparison?
All others --- if not [fill in the blank] in some way or another (including by the 'religiosity' of the pious) condemned for doing so?
One temptation brings out another, my FRiend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.