Posted on 10/03/2001 10:26:11 PM PDT by malakhi
| The belief in a God All Powerful, wise and good, is essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man. - James Madison |
| Threads 1-50 | Threads 51-100 | Threads 101-150 |
| Thread 151 | Thread 152 | Thread 153 | Thread 154 |
The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 155
I think most independent churches will have a statement of beliefs to which they adhere. You think they are run in chaos (and while some of them may be), you are arguing from your lack of experience. You cannot say that they do not have statements of faith. And I'm sure no one wants to take all the independent churches statements of faith and compare them. But until one does, one cannot make the claim that they are separate denominations.
Plus, if you're arguing that doctrine is all that separates one denomination from another, then you have to remove several denominations from the list as all that they differ on is their church structure, with no discernible differences in doctrine.
Yeah, fair enough. I was looking for Oral Tradition which was not contained in the Scripture. Oral Tradition separate from the written tradition which we now have. I should have clarified that.
He's busy refuting. Musn't bother him. By the way, I do have Kordell Stewart's autograph from when he was a senior at the University of Colorado. (sell it to ya for cheap) Good day and thanx for the opportunity to add to my post total. :-)
Origen would disagree.
For in this place these words seem to be addressed as to Peter only, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven," etc; but in the Gospel of John the Saviour having given the Holy Spirit unto the disciples by breathing upon them said, "Receive ye the Holy Spirit," etc. Many then will say to the Saviour, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God; "but not all who say this will say it to Him, as not at all having learned it by the revelation of flesh and blood but by the Father in heaven Himself taking away the veil that lay upon their heart, in order that after this "with unveiled face reflecting as a mirror the glory of the Lord" they may speak through the Spirit of God saying concerning Him, "Lord Jesus," and to Him, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname of "rock" who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. X
I certainly did neglect the idea of a "statement of faith," but I think that easily turns in my favor as well. Remember that we are talking about how people interpret the Bible. How different pastors interpret even similar or identical "statements of faith" or what emphasis they place in their teaching can make a world of difference.
Plus, if you're arguing that doctrine is all that separates one denomination from another, then you have to remove several denominations from the list as all that they differ on is their church structure, with no discernible differences in doctrine.
Unless you consider church government and organization as part of doctrine. Which we certainly do.
SD
My yes, that was a heck of a pass he threw that one day, wasn't it?
SD
Maybe all Catholic scholars agree, but it is quite the opposite on the other side of the fence. Y'all are stuck with the curious Papias quote regarding the logia through Eusebius and you must abide by it (despite the fact that it's not clear at all). The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says this: "Almost all scholars agree that our Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek and is not a translated document. Matthew's Gospel reveals none of the telltale marks of a translation. Further, Matthew's OT quotations are derived from the LXX rather than the Hebrew text."
Ecclesiology is definitely a part of doctrine. But if the difference in the ecclesiology has to do with whether the pastors are under the authority of the central governing body or the church as a whole, I think you're getting into areas which are not part of "doctrine."
But then your local parishes become independent denominations depending upon the emphasis that they place on identical "statements of faith." That cuts both ways.
I'm not ruling out any place for books and teachers and churches. We can learn a lot from what others have learned and are willing to teach us, and from theology books which have systematized the teachings of scripture. But we do not NEED extra-biblical doctrines, because we are already fully equipped.
I can name that tune in 3 words...
Kingdom of God :^)
"through me" means just what it says. The Koran won't do. Jesus is the path upon which one must travel to reach the Father.
I still have that pass on video tape. As a matter of fact I had a friend with heart problems over at my house that day watching the game. He actually started having angina right after that pass play. I'm happy to report he's still around today.
That is not what the passage says. Read it again:
If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." (John 20:23)
"If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven". Seems pretty straightforward. Nothing to suggest a mere rubber-stamp of what already has been decided in Heaven.
I never said that they were irrelevant. If you can show me where I said that I will retract. Until then you are merely putting words in my mouth.
You made the statement that even if there were 2 denominations there would cause for sadness. What if the two denominations came into being over their interpretations of Gen. 6 and the nephilim. Would that be a cause for sadness? You think that any sort of divisions, no matter for what reason, are inherently bad and cause for sadness. I see them as inherent in our human nature.
Or, alternately, you can read the Greek in the Matthew passage addressed to Peter and see that it lines up with what I said. Either way.
Nah, just an example of the Devil having his way because people want to see God through worldly eyes rather than spiritual eyes. People try to reason their way through and end up calling the works of God those of the devil and vice versa. Sounds an awful lot like current topics. If you all get your eyes off the world and on God who knows where it might lead.
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.