Posted on 05/09/2011 10:59:18 AM PDT by Bokababe
.....The guidelines I used in interpreting Scripture seemed simple enough: When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense. I believed that those who were truly faithful and honest in following this principle would achieve Christian unity.
To my surprise, this “common sense” approach led not to increased Christian clarity and unity, but rather to a spiritual free-for-all!
Those who most strongly adhered to believing “only the Bible” tended to become the, most factious, divisive, and combative of Christians-perhaps unintentionally. In fact, it seemed to me that the more one held to the Bible as the only source of spiritual authority, the more factious and sectarian one became. We would even argue heatedly over verses on love! Within my circle of Bible-believing friends, I witnessed a mini-explosion of sects and schismatic movements, each claiming to be “true to the Bible” and each in bitter conflict with the others. Serious conflict arose over every issue imaginable: charismatic gifts, interpretation of prophecy, the proper way to worship, communion, Church government, discipleship, discipline in the Church, morality, accountability, evangelism, social action, the relationship of faith and works, the role of women, and ecumenism. The list is endless. In fact any issue at all could-and often did-cause Christians to part ways.....
(Excerpt) Read more at journeytoorthodoxy.com ...
Orthodoxy Ping!
"I shall name you Petros and upon this rock I shall build my Church." (John 1:42/ Matt. 16: 18-19: [paraphrased])
The scriptures are recordings after the fact.
I agree the Church came first, but how do you figure by a thousand years?
My understanding is that the NT was all written down before 100AD, with the NT and OT cannon 90% settled by 200 AD, and definitively settled by 400 AD, at the latest.
I agree the Church came first, but how do you figure by a thousand years?
My understanding is that the NT was all written down before 100AD, with the NT and OT cannon 90% settled by 200 AD, and definitively settled by 400 AD, at the latest.
I agree the Church came first, but how do you figure by a thousand years?
My understanding is that the NT was all written down before 100AD, with the NT and OT cannon 90% settled by 200 AD, and definitively settled by 400 AD, at the latest.
Behold! The Trinity!
Too bad the RC church has twisted that passage to mean Peter was the first Pope, when clearly (as other scripture shows) it was never meant to be taken that way.
You seem to think one contradicts the other. The Bible reveals what the NT church was like. Everything about the NT church is outlined and codified by the Bible. Its practice, its worship, its government. If a Church tells me something that is contradicted by the Bible, it isn’t the Bible that is wrong.
Ya...you’d like us to believe that when Chist said “this” he was referring to Himself....and you call “us” twisted”???
Didn’t read the whole article (bad FReeper!!!) but I think even us Sola Scriptura types acknowledge that there was a transition period where not all the NT was published. A hundred years give or take.
During that time we basically had the apostles themselves, who no Sola Scriptura type would argue with!
So, in OT times, we had direct revelation by God to some, and the prophets for most; the gradually written OT.
During Jesus’s earthly ministry, we add the person of Jesus, and his ordained apostles.
After Jesus’ ascension, we had the OT and the apostles,the NT began to be recorded, and the Holy Spirit.
After the apostles died out we had the whole canon, plus the presence of the Holy Spirit.
So while I agree that during that period of time when the NT was not all complete, we relied on the church, that is to say, the duly ordained apostles -
that doesn’t imply to me that the NT takes a subservient role to ordained men today.
Sigero’s Letter to the Freepublicans.
No, actually I believe he was talking to Peter. So your assumption is wrong. Christ did not, in that passage, give all authority to Peter to be *the* apostle. That is emphatically wrong. Christ names Peter “cephas” because of his character traits and that is what Christ built the Church on. Unwavering truth like a rock!
“You are ‘Rock’, and upon your rockly character traits I will build my church. For about a hundred years. Then read the book.”
So the Apostles were "temps"?
“Unwavering truth like a rock!”
He did deny Christ three times after that.
Not to insult Peter; I know Jesus forgave him.
But, you know, not exactly unwavering truth like a rock.
“...and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever you lose on earth, shall be losed in Heaven.”
What part of that don’t you understand?
Scanned quickly - Read later. Looks very well written.
Thanks for posting.
Any particular reason for you to bring up the Catholic Church on a thread about an Orthodox priest’s faith journey?
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.