Posted on 12/10/2012 9:27:44 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
Yes.
But in practice....
Why would it lead to schism??? Seems non-sensical to me.
I mean, it's ok to have two services -- one with guitars, one with Gregorian chants. What's the harm as long as both praise our Triune God?
I'm sorry, but that's incorrect -- I believe that the Mormons and Oneness Pentecostals and Jehovah's Witnesses are the fastest growing.
For many of the denominations, I see a common cause to fight a common enemy -- secularisation.
All the "evangelical" groups aren't really in the "Protestant" group anymore but form their own new tradition. Some vary extremely from orthodoxy such as Oneness Pentecostals who reject the Trinity and others don't vary so much
Yet fwdude's post has asserted that it is scripture alone which says drinking any form of alcohol -- even a sip -- is evil. Scripture alone tells him so, right?
And we all know that everyone only drinks a sip, right?
Personal interpretation of Scripture sure is convenient for the go along to get along crowd. Murdering your children with contraceptives and being stoned are fine, but having a beer will send you straight to Hell.
“Where is it said in the Word that one must adopt a creed in order to follow Yeshua? No creed is necessary, ergo, no creed should be present.”
Absolutely a creed is necessary. Where does the Word give a list of books that say, “this is the word of God”?.
“It is the Spirit who sanctions.”
I ask again, what is stopping them from removing Romans 1 from the Word?
“Have they failed? Yup. then they are gone”
And what does Christ himself say? Christ himself says that the ‘Gates of Hell’ shall not prevail against his Church.
“That almost never happens to a hierarchy.”
Then why did Jesus choose the Apostles and give them authority over the rest of the Church? There is a threefold heirarchy, and it is biblical. Right there in Acts.
You are talking to the wrong guy. While I tend to work out of the Protestant Bible as being the most universally agreed upon, I am not fond of the concept of a 'canon'.
I ask again, what is stopping them from removing Romans 1 from the Word?
So what if they do? Such antics have been attempted before, and will undoubtedly be attempted again. Somehow, the Word of YHWH is preserved in spite of what any (including yours) attempt to do.
And what does Christ himself say? Christ himself says that the ‘Gates of Hell’ shall not prevail against his Church.
yeah, right... You might remember that gates are defensive. It has been a very long while since any established church made an offensive assault on the gates of hell. Longevity has *nothing* to do with that. Quite the opposite.
Then why did Jesus choose the Apostles and give them authority over the rest of the Church? There is a threefold heirarchy, and it is biblical. Right there in Acts.
Your interpretation thereof is likely to be different from mine. And it is a moot point: There were twelve Apostles (13 to count Paul) Each of them had disciples and so on, exponentially. And no one was keeping track - Shoot, it is hardly known where all the Apostles even WENT, not to mention who they may have authorized. And what to do with Paul, who was brought up from without the 12; who was taught at the knee of the resurrected Messiah Himself?
And at the time of Pentecost, there were 120, not 12. And they went out into the 4 corners too.
So any supposed 'authority' and record have very little veracity toward the point. ANY ONE of ANY disciples could be the only true Church and carry the laying on of hands.
Do not forget the line of the Kings of Israel, and how hidden they became. Like then, it is likely now, that those who rest upon such a claim are not the ones who actually own the claim:
Herod was the line of kings in Yeshua's day, and Herod was an Edomite (and so was the high priest at the Temple). Both of these claimed authority that could not possibly be theirs too.
It is far more likely that the laying on of hands passed down innumerable times, and many of them are effective (THAT NO ONE SHOULD BOAST).
you are saying that scripture alone says drinking any amount is bad while it actually says drinking to excess is bad. Jesus had wine too btw.
You mean like the oneness pentecostals who reject the Trinity? Or the Seventh Day Adventists with the Satan is the brother of Christ bit? lots of interpretations, eh?
“You are talking to the wrong guy. While I tend to work out of the Protestant Bible as being the most universally agreed upon, I am not fond of the concept of a ‘canon’.”
There’s no Word without a Canon. The Word cannot, and does not define itself, but the Church sets the Canon. Protestants don’t get around this problem, they simply use a different tradition (that of Luther’s), rather than that of Pope Damasus from the 4th century.
“So what if they do? Such antics have been attempted before, and will undoubtedly be attempted again. Somehow, the Word of YHWH is preserved in spite of what any (including yours) attempt to do.”
Obviously not, given that those who have already mutilated the Canon now assert that their Canon is correct.
“Your interpretation thereof is likely to be different from mine”
That doesn’t make your interpretation correct. There is a threefolk heirarchy right in scripture. If you are arguing that Acts is part of the Word, then you cannot argue that the Church ought not have a heirarchy.
“ANY ONE of ANY disciples could be the only true Church and carry the laying on of hands.”
Nonsense. All of them are part of the true Church. Every single one and their disciples are as well. There is no division between the Apostles, but there is a division between Luther’s followers and the Church. And between Calvin’s followers and Luther’s followers and the Church. And between Zwingli’s followers, and Calvin’s followers, and Luther’s followers and the Church. Etc so on and so forth.
Sure there are. But that doesn't mean that the errors that all y'all prefer are any less errors than theirs.
Not according to the Word, it doesn't. The Oracles of YHWH are committed to the Hebrews, not the Romans. There was no 'canon' prior to some 'necessity' as defined by Rome. The 'canon' is and always has been the Torah. That which is accepted scripture beyond that is defined by the Torah.
And the Word certainly DOES define itself. Every single book of it has both Word and prophecy intertwined. The 'Word' must not transgress the Torah, and the 'Prophecy' cannot transgress the prophets.
Protestants don’t get around this problem, they simply use a different tradition (that of Luther’s), rather than that of Pope Damasus from the 4th century.
Nonsense. The Protestant tradition has not been without examination since the time of Luther. What they accept has been tirelessly addressed over and again. And they are right in that which they accept. Everything they do accept IS Word. What y'all accept is questionable... And neither one necessarily have it all.
Obviously not, given that those who have already mutilated the Canon now assert that their Canon is correct.
I didn't say that either canon was correct. I have asserted that the Protestant Bible is the most accepted - You admit that the books within are Word, and so do I... You would add others to it, but that does not detract from the fact that you do accept every one of those books.
That doesn’t make your interpretation correct. There is a threefolk heirarchy right in scripture. If you are arguing that Acts is part of the Word, then you cannot argue that the Church ought not have a heirarchy.
I most certainly can. And I most certainly DO.
Nonsense. All of them are part of the true Church. Every single one and their disciples are as well
Oh, I have no doubt that all of them are a part of the true Church... But that Church is not the Roman church. Else I would be a Roman even now (*shudder*).
I think Jesus drank “new wine,” non-fermented.
The wine that he made from water was non-alcoholic.
Wine is fermented. Grape juice naturally gets formented and is "natural". I think it would be pretty hard to make grapejuice and maintain it in that state from the time of the harvest until passover. The juice of a grape will ferment. I don't speak Greek, but I was told that the original Greek texts say wine.
If I am not mistaken Jesus drank a glass of wine now and then (Matthew 11: 18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ' But wisdom is proved right by her actions." )
Remember the passage about new wine in old wineskins? The reason is that you couldn't drink new wine, you had to age it. If you put it into old skins, the skins would deteriorate and break. YOu had to use new skin.
And remember how Paul told Timothy to use a little wine with his water for his stomach's sake? To us, it doesn't make sense, since alcohol causes ulcers. But Paul recognized that wine mixed with water helped prevent stomach problems (diarrhea and dystentary).
Wine wasn't just served at weddings (Last Supper, anyone?), it was served at every meal, in all Jewish homes. Because wine was naturally fermented back then, absent the addition of yeast and sugar, it wasn't quite as potent as wine that was created several hundred years later. But, it was still fermented and still plainly alcoholic.
For example, the wedding in Cana, where Jesus turned the water into wine, happened near passover. In the spring. Grapes are harvested in fall.
With wine there is no grape juice and suddenly wine. There was no form of long term storage for grape juice, no preserving it. Grape juice in short order would spoil. So from the pressing of the grapes, the juice would IMMEDIATELY begin to be processed into wine. Fermentation is not simply leaving grape juice out for a long bit of time, that is spoilage. So making wine is a deliberate process.
Now as the Hebrew word Tirosh means new wine, new wine is wine that is not fully fermented. Drinking wine at this point can make one sick, if not dead. The alcohol has not killed all the bacteria at this point.
So the Oinos (gr) that Jesus made would have been Yayin and not Tirosh.
The error you make is that Christ does not allow His Church to have errors and that’s why it remains, thanks to His grace alone. The error filled denominations crash and burn as will yours and others.
Oh, I’m referring to Jesus Christ’s One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church (Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental, Assyrian) — and for you to say Christ’s Church has errors is a compliment. I’d rather we follow Christ’s words than yours, thank you. Now go back to whatever new age you wish to be with, 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.