Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
It's an excellent, and sadly true summary of the Protestant mindset, MD.
But we do, either in our beliefs or discussions.
***St. John’s Gospel is a new development in Christian understanding of Christ as fully divine as well as fully human.***
Let me see if I understand the “logic” here. John is a direct witness to the events. He later writes about the events and claims that Jesus was crucified for claiming equality with God. Yet, it wasn’t until many years later that anyone would think that Christ was God even though that was what he was crucified for, claiming to be God.
Now I’m sure we can expect you to respond with some atheistic Bible criticism claiming that was not the case.
Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. – Colossians 2:16—23
INDEED! Thanks Big.
I do apologize for unnecessary cheekiness and offense, Dear Kosta.
I do often struggle with trying to discern just where you are coming from and going in many of your posts. I don’t know that there’s an easy solution. We are both who we are.
I will earnestly try to keep in mind more firmly that you are hostile to Communism. That was a niggling alarm I was quite concerned about but didn’t know what to make of it given other things. I appreciate your clarification.
HOGWASH.
And CERTAINLY
NO more so
than the RC edifice mindset.
I would say “the mindset of SOME Protestants”.
I would suggest that not acknowledging the promises God makes to the Apostles and the Church is an instance of "diminishing" His word. (And, of course, we are told that mostly we "add" to it.)
SO I would say that to submit to God would imply a duty to acknowledge the Catholic Church. And so I have to say that I do not think that the position you take really involves submission only and entirely to God. I think this school of one-on-one, God and me, stuff is a tradition arising in the past couple of centuries, though it cropped up among the Montanists and others earlier on.
To me it seems to be picking and choosing among His commands. I quite understand that it looks different from over there where you are.
So, much as I love the Colossians, Galatians and Romans passages you quoted, it seems to me they work either way. I can say them (and frequently do!) with as much fervor and resolve as you.
(typing with cat leaning on my arm here ...)
Who disputes that "God is greater than all?" Not me.
Who says one gift is "more important" than another? Not me. However, your stand seems to be precisely that of hand saying to another member, "'I have no need of thee.' because God speaks to me directly and my perception is so reliable that I don't need to go to other members of the body, especially to those members whose office is thought by some to be to check such things."
Have you ever heard a preacher who did not have the gift of preaching? He does more harm than good.
The same holds for any person, council or assembly that holds itself to be the head of the body of Christ, the church. Christ is the head of the church.
Of COURSE Christ is the head of the Church. Are YOU (not the others whom you pinged. I've read too many times what they say about us.) seriously saying that Catholics don't think so? "He is the head of the Body the Church! that must come up in evening prayer once a week or so.
So no one is asking you to submit to the doctrines and traditions "of men", anymore than Paul submitted to the cotrines and traditions of men when he went to check if he was running or had run in vain. Are you greater than Paul? Is your closeness to God and knowledge of His will greater than Paul's? How is what you are saying different from claiming that Paul submitted himself to the doctrines and (very young) traditions of men.?
Sanctification is certainly a process, a "walk" (or, for Paul, a "run"), but you're saying it's a walk in which you are your own guide because you have a greater certainty that you are not running in vain that Paul does, since he checked with Cephas and those of repute.
Further, I would say that you put down and pick up the principles of logic at will. You have presented an argument in the two posts to which I am responding. Without the principles of logic it's just noise.
So when you adduce the "of Paul... of Apollos" passage, you are implying that the Catholic Church is one "denomination" among many, and further that to focus on a denomination is to focus on "doctrines and traditions of men".
But there WERE no "denominations" as such, no need for the term, even, until someone said, "I am of Luther,": and another "I am of Calvin," and another, "I am of Henry VII" and another I am of Menno Sims" or "Johann Hus" and so forth. (There were "factions", yes, but not denominations.) We and the Orthodox, despite our own quarrels, (and we were maybe more alert to so-called "Reform" because it was being taken out of our hide -- or our part of it) looked upon this new "I am of the Wesley Brothers" stuff with sadness, horror and, regrettably, anger.
But we have no reached a point where there are some as well saying,"I am of Christ" (I Cor 1:12). And so we have "non-denominational" Christians, because the earlier "Disciples of Christ" (aka "Christians" - ended up being as much a denomination now as they were a "faction" when Paul wrote to them in the church at Corinth. And if you listen you will hear that "non-denominational" is becoming as much a "denomination" as anything else these days.
To appeal for the authority of the Orthodox or Catholic Churches is NOT to substitute a head for Christ, or even to claim a "Denomination" or "religion" (in hosepipe's lingo) but to accept His word to Cephas and to those in the upper room who later approved Paul's ministry and produced a letter in which they seemed unabashedly to claim that they could speak for the Holy Spirit.
(Hosepipe insists it's a family. Well who is it who calls their leader "Papa"?)
We all agree that these leaders are the same people who forsook Christ and fled, and that their leader denied Him thrice. We are not under any illusions about who they are when not filled with the Spirit and power, and we certainly don't think of them as head in PLACE of Christ! What nonsense it is to pretend that we do! I may be stupid, but I am not THAT stupid.
But you have thrown over board the tools of conversation -- although you seem ready to recover them to argue or explain your points. And, unless I misunderstand, you appear to claim that you are closer to God and given more assurance than Saint Paul was, and so close that the examples of the saints of the Bible need not apply to you personally.
I don't mean this in a finger-wagging way. What may seem to you like diffidence is in fact confidence that God can work it out. And you are so generous and graceful in your manner that I think we can disagree without enmity. But, well, let's say that While the things of God seem like foolishness to those carnally wise, it's not true that every time something looks like foolishness the person who thinks so is carnally wise. Some things seem foolish even to the saints.
But let us indeed give Him the glory first, for His mercies endure for ever.
I think more along the lines of, "Despite the Bozos whom God suffers to be members of and even to exercise leadership in His Church (and when I say "suffers" I mean in every possible sense that is not incompatible with God's impassability) By the prevenient and concomitant and ex post facto (to keep us from coming back and messing it all up when He isn't looking) grace of God, the Church managed not to make a total hash out of something.
That sounds a lot more humble, so I appreciate that. :) I've just seen many posts over the course of this thread that, shall we say, do not exactly reflect that same humility. :) The argument that I frequently see is along the lines that since it was the men of the Apostolic Church who both wrote the NT and then decided which books should be included, that we would not be Christians if it were not for them. We "owe" them, in essence, part of our very salvation. Consequently, we are then arrogant and ungrateful for not accepting Apostolic theology, and the rest of the writings of the Fathers, etc. That sort of thing.
Our typical response is that NO HUMAN (or group), not Luther or Calvin (if they had lived at the time) or anyone else, deserves any credit in and of themselves for the scriptures. We talk of them being God-breathed. I even quoted with favor from the Catechism on this. I think that approach sounded fine to me. :)
We think the word "Apostle" includes in itself the authority/power to pass on. That's why (in our not so humble opinion) there's not an explicit statement. The writers, we'd say, thought they'd said all that when they said "Apostle".
Yes, I'd agree from what I've seen. Along with the (lack of) scripture argument, I would also add that if the authority and power did pass on, then all who have received it since would be able to say they were, shall we say, in the "same club" with the Apostles. I wouldn't go so far as to say "equal with" as an astronaut today would not say he was "equal with" Neil Armstrong. But, nevertheless in the same club. I guess I think of the Apostles as having a very unique and one-time-only club.
Excellent points, Quix!
Yes, we do but where does it end up? Usually in arguments or nowhere at all because some things are mysteries. I will always believe I will see my loved ones in heaven. If that doesn’t happen, then God has a better plan.
By the time they took the reigns, I assume that the Apostles all knew their scriptures inside and out. They were sent, and I can't imagine God sending the Apostles out empty handed. I think of:
Mark 13:11 : Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.
Luke 12:11-12 : 11 "When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say, 12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say."
So, just as you go on to say, they did have the Spirit to guide them. I think it's reasonable that this applied not only when they were in trouble, but also when they were preaching.
But lumping all the Apostles into the same knowledge class is a mistake I believe.
I don't think they all had equal knowledge, since they all continued to learn throughout life. However, I think it only makes sense that all of them were completely qualified by God to preach all of His word that God wanted preached. (At a minimum, I would think this would include a solid understanding of the OT.) God chose them, sent them, and gave them this specific task. He wouldn't leave 'em hanging. :)
You mean the way he does "US".. I have Gods anointing much in my life and been on my own in between.. Well I wasnt on my own it just seemed that way.. Otherwise how could I learn ANYTHING.. Even Moses made mistakes.. so have I.. What about Jacob... Jona.. and Saul(paul).. Peter(Cephas) is biggest doofus of all..
Yeah God(Holy Spirit) can leave us hanging.. a prayer away from disaster.. "Some" wouldn't pray otherwise.. Know what I mean..
Wonderful answer, A-G. I think the problem with many churches that people do try to operate out of their giftings. If God has gifted me to be a hand and I operate out of a foot, whew, clumsy to say the least. There are people who should never be preachers or Sunday School teachers. I only taught SS because there were so few in my old church who would. It was NOT my gifting at all, but I was willing to do it. Too many churches operate that way. People either don’t know their giftings or they don’t want to know.
Mad Dawg, do you really think God would be pleased with your showing anyone who doesn’t agree with you (the reprobate) disrespect or contempt? I don’t think so. Even if they do that to you, remember how Jesus acted when He was spat on and beaten.
But how can that be when the Gospels say:
Luke 24:44 : He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."
John 5:45-47 : 45 "But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"
You are only speaking of those who didn't know their own faith. True Judaism saw Christ coming.
Books were "horse traded" as Forest Keeper says (i.e. Hebrews and Revelation) as a matter of compromise which hardly smacks of divine infallibility.
Well, I said that in criticism of the idea. :) I don't agree that actually happened by the independent actions of men for a minute. I maintain that God was fully in control of the whole thing.
Yet all major Christian sects and even cults accept the canonization decided by the Church, even though they deny the authority of the same! When the Church canonized the Christian Bible, it may or may not have done so under the guidance of the Spirit.
An example from my last post to you, MD.
***Bowing is a sign of respect or reverence.
= = =
As with most things spiritual . . .
It DEPENDS on the HEART ATTITUDE . . . toward that which one is bowing to.***
Exactly. Apologies will be accepted in the light of day. And in public.
(If you say "Christ," then the next logical question would be "why the intermediatory when God tells us 'there is only one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus?'")
You invoke Mary's name and attention and ask for her help when you bow to her statue. You obviously are bowing to Mary and not to Christ.
And as we know from Isaiah 44, Christ is not found in the stock of a tree.
***you are confessing, admitting that prostrating one’s self before a statue of Mary would be worship. ***
Well, yes.
I understand that the anti Catholicism blinding your eyes is difficult to see through, but, we are accurate, we are consistent, and we are right.
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.