Posted on 09/23/2015 6:35:02 AM PDT by Salvation
Wish we had a like button
“And Jesus plan is not to write a book and then just hope that everyone follows it and interprets it in the same way.”
Let’s get this straight. You grab your doctrine of succession from a book, then run off and build a system around it (with other bits you grabbed from the book) and then turn around and pooh-pooh the book when it rebukes you to your face?
No way to treat a book Jesus had ANYTHING to do with, Charles.
To give everyone a heads up on just Who it is they’re messing with when they in any way denigrate the authority and power of Scripture, consider this:
“And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, In you shall all the nations be blessed.”Galatians 3:8
and again
“But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.”Galatians 3:22
Scripture issues forth from God. Dismiss it, crib from it, manipulate others with it, obscure it, exaggerate it at your peril.
**If No One is Pope, Everyone is Pope.**
If this this Socialist is an example of a Pope, well, no thank you.
I think your post goes to the point of who decides. On a macro level, is it the head of the denomination, congregation, convention, etc.? On the micro level, is it a pastor, preacher, priest, or the individual? The Bible gives at least two examples, such as Peter and Paul acting alone and the Apostles acting as a group.
I believe there is overlap. The Catholic model is the Church proposes a set of beliefs. A person must decide whether they accept the proposed beliefs. Thence forward, they are to trust the priests and bishops, as having been properly formed and instructed. Simultaneously, a person must develop their intellect in such they can know if a particular priest, bishop, etc is way off the mark.
Ultimately, it is up to the individual to decide what is right for their soul. They must choose what they believe is the truth, out of several competing versions. Without a well-formed conscious and intellect, a person may accept false doctrines.
To me that’s simple: they’re sinners. The number of people for whom sunday services or even daily prayers are a kind of hypnotic or analgesic is ... huge.
My mother considered herself a devout Anglican. Read religious books, prayed, worked hard for her parish. And she was very firm that she expected worship to be soothing. Also, she was very much a Pelagian anclear that she thought Paul was wrong!
So I am not surprised by peolle who don’t even try to follow their denominations teaching, morals, or practices.
How do you construe the “diversity of gifts / one spirit” part of I Cor?
“To me thats simple: theyre sinners. The number of people for whom sunday services or even daily prayers are a kind of hypnotic or analgesic is ... huge.”
Huge indeed! There are some “catholic” countries where half the members or more never darken the door of a church all year.
Are you saying “There IS no unity of teaching,” “There CAN’T BE unity of teaching,” or “There shouldn’t be unity of teaching?”
I don’t understand what your post means.
Well, the disunity is a problem for me. They’re not preaching the same thing and there’s no one to go to to say whether the Witnesses are right or the Wesleyans. And they certainly disagree with one another.
There wouldn't be if original Christianity had not had apostate "grievous wolves" to arise from among themselves "speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them," Acts 20:29,30.
There wouldn't be if the original good seed first sown, had not had tares to arise among the wheat (parable of the wheat and tares, Matt. 13).
There wouldn't be if Christianity had not apostatized, becoming more and more eclectic, more and more paganized, more and more Romanized, until the rise of the Roman Papacy, a tyrannical totalitarian institution.
From the days of Wycliffe, Huss, and Luther, Christianity has been characterized by its effort to overthrow the paganism introduced into it, trying to get back to the original good seed first sown before the eclectics had corrupted the field. The Protestants represent that gallant effort.
So don't trash the gallant effort of Protestants, there wouldn't be Protestants if the RCC had not become the chief representative of eclectic paganized Christianity. The Papacy is tares, not wheat.
Actually, I’d tweak your model. The, so to speak, skeletal kerygma is proposed, yes. But then things bubble up, like Paul’s teaching and eating with the nations. Then, when there’s a controversy a council or a pope decides which of the teachings or practices is okay and which not.
E.g.: Paul gives us a son of man + son of God terminology.But finally we need an Ephesus and Chalcedon to nail down a framework for understanding what Paul said.
Is that tweak okay?
Sounds good to me.
It’s interesting. 30+ years ago in Mississippi the culture certainly supported parking one’s padded portion in a pew on Sundays, but my impression was that not many had made any soul-searching commitment about being there.
My attitude is, it’s our job to blow on the ember. If it’s meant to light up, God will hande that part.
If no one is pope, everyone must appeal directly to Jesus Christ for their salvation, for ... there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved. (Act 4:12)
I’m not, I wouldn’t trash all the efforts of all the Protestants by any means! Of course I won’t agree that we have a monopoly on tares, though we sho’ ‘nuff have plenty. But ... well, the hymns alone are testimony to the Holy Ghost moving among Xtians not in communion with the Holy See. And most of my theological learning, such as it is, happened at a (Calvinist leaning) Episcopal seminary in the lost days when they believed in God and studied Scripture.
But unity of teaching would be nice. There has been fermentation with some pretty wild grapes from the beginning, hasn’t there?
Yes, it would be nice, but the wheat and tares parable I mentioned says otherwise. Christianity will continue in its present state of wheat coexisting with the tares, until the harvest at the end of the age (aion), when the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, "...there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
So, I offer this to, like, expand your minds.
:-
As a Catholic lay-d00d, albeit a Dominican, certainly I have experienced the tares in, ah, sheep's (or shepherd's) clothing, if you follow me. I sat agape as the deacon teaching RCIA gave a chunk o' instruction that had been specifically repudiated by J2P2 a few years prior. It was a safe bet that the deacon had not read Veritatis Splendor and probably wouldn't have cared if he had.
What he said was all tarted up in offishul sounding lingo, but the discerning (or half-awake) listener knew it came down to, "It doesn't matter what you do as long as you're sincere." But hark! I hear sweet nausea calling ....
No offense to Catholics intended, but if we have Jesus why do we then need a Pope?
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.