Posted on 01/11/2005 6:18:33 PM PST by malakhi
| Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. |
After a nine month hiatus, The Neverending Story, the granddaddy of daily threads, has returned to Free Republic. Originally begun on March 24, 2001, as a religious discussion thread, the NES evolved over time into a daily thread spanning a wide variety of topics. The new and improved Neverending Story will feature conversation on religion, politics, culture, current events, business, sports, family, hobbies, general fellowship and more. We welcome you to hang your hat in our little corner of FR. We ask you to abide by the FR posting rules and, even in the midst of serious debate, to keep the discussion friendly and respectful. Those who wish to "duke it out" are asked to take it over to the Smoky Backroom. I placed this thread in "General/Chat" for a reason, so play nice and have fun! :o)
Matt 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
You can't claim to follow Jesus and ignore Him when He says obey the Church. At most, you can follow the teachings of Jesus that you personally approve of. But, then again, that's pretty much the point of the modern individualist believer.
The proper context of the verse that you cite regards the resolution of a transgression between christian brothers (or sisters).Matthew 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
Agreed! God wasn't responsible for that.
How do you know that the church has this authority?
So you're saying it's circular?
That they only have to listen to the Church if they ARE Christian? And that if they don't listen to the Church they are not?
OK.... that's an acceptable proxy.
John answered, "Master, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he does not follow with us."
But Jesus said to him, "Do not forbid him; for he that is not against you is for you." (Luke 9:49-50)
I'm not sure what you think this means.
What do you think that it means ?
Sure. But I don't accept that we are to acquiesce to the Church in matters of small claims court, but find it unacceptable in defining dogma.
Seems silly to me that Jesus would start a Church able to settle a dispute over a broken fence, but not over the question of Who He Is.
SD
So you're saying it's circular?
That they only have to listen to the Church if they ARE Christian? And that if they don't listen to the Church they are not?
No ... what I'm saying is that Matt. 18:17 is not a useful biblical prooftext of any general requirement for obedience to any Church.
Our priority should be obedience to God.Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
For what? There are no people being held to ex post facto laws, by God or by the Church. That's my point and why Reggie's objection is so unserious. No one is holding 1st century believers culpable for not articulating 4th Century dogmas.
SD
Some did, some didn't. That's the point. Before the Church formally declares a dogma, it is not binding on the faithful. Those who did not were wrong, for sure. But there is a difference between being in error prior to a formal declaration, and persisting in error afterward. One is a mistake, the other a sin.
SD
It is an article of faith. Arrived at by a combination of reason and revelation.
"God made it clear to me" is how I would put it.
SD
That one who is doing miraculous things (expelling demons) in Jesus' name should not be forbidden to do so. I don't read it as a nullification of the Apostles' right to control who speaks for the Church, but a modification of this right.
SD
Why is it always an either/or? God did not design His Church to be at odds with obedience to Him.
SD
Sure. But I don't accept that we are to acquiesce to the Church in matters of small claims court, but find it unacceptable in defining dogma.
Seems silly to me that Jesus would start a Church able to settle a dispute over a broken fence, but not over the question of Who He Is.
Surprisingly, ... it just might matter more to Jesus that we resolve our numerous petty disputes ... than whether we all agree 100% in our understandings of exactly Who He is ... other than that which He has clearly revealed.
The pertinent NT questions about Jesus' identity were such as these ...Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
---------------------------------------------------------
Matthew 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
---------------------------------------------------------
John 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
---------------------------------------------------------
Matthew 22:41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? ...
Sure there is a question. Those that believed in the deity of Jesus at the counsel were in the minority.
It is allright that I chime in on the conversation, isn't it? Me changing all the time and all that.
First of all... there were something like 17 out of hundreds... (I guess that's "some").
What you're missing here is the two ways that such pronouncements are made. One is to combat heresy. To make sure there is an official pronouncement on false teachings. Such teaching were heresy (not just "incorrect") prior to the council. The second is to clarify areas of confussion (as with the issue with Mary you cited).
You could not believe that Jesus was just some nice guy with great ideas simply because it was the year 200 and Nicea hadn't happened yet.
Nicaea also gave instruction on how to reconcile and readmit the Novatianist scimatics. They didn't say "this is declared as sin... so you need to reconcile IF you continue believing this after the date we close this council".
The issue here is WHAT is being declared and WHY. The divinity of Christ was not a "new thing" first true at Nicaea... nor was it acceptable to believe this PRIOR to Nicaea.
Our priority should be obedience to God.
Why is it always an either/or? God did not design His Church to be at odds with obedience to Him.
Most certainly He did not ... but He knew (and knows) that men are fallible.Psalm 103:13 Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him.
14 For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust.
There's a "change" right there. You never would have asked in the past. :-)
By all means!
But try to be consistent. If you become Catholic half way through the conversation... make sure you clue us in... it'll save confusion.
Ummm..... no.
SD
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.