Posted on 11/26/2001 2:49:05 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
LOL. I reckon not, but there've been a few FR moments when I thought I was meeting the Holy Spirit, or at least his spokesman.
I have no theological training, so I have no answer for those like you, who've been baptised in the Trinity the same as I, but do not share the same Food. Ultimately, my belief in one flock and one shepherd relies on a belief in the perfect unity of the Trinity, a life to which Christians are called. God is one. The statement is so simple that it's almost always overlooked in its implications, but not the least of these are obedience, purity, love, and solidarity. The sacrament of baptism is one of rebirth, but it's also one of community, as are pennance, the Eucharist, and marriage. Jesus, the light of the world, is the light not of random, disordered chaos, but of beauty and of ordered, reasoned creation -- "Fos kosmou" . The peace of Christ is not that of this world because it's the true peace (there is no other) that consists in perfect conformity and accord -- unity -- with God. I am more and more convinced that ecclesiastical unity is important not for doctrinal or juridical reasons, nor for reasons of power and control, but because as the pure and perfect spouse of Christ the Church must conform to the unity of her divine spouse. The unity of the Church is therefore not practical but mystical, and is the means by which man is drawn to theosis.
Where this places you in the Church, or me, is not for me to judge. All I know is that unity is an either/or thing, and that if the Savior taught through commonplace and visible examples, the visible structure he left behind him is surely a symbol and beacon of that perfect, Trinitarian unity.
I'm glad that you brought up the Trinity, because not only is it something about which we can all agree, I have come to believe that pretty much across the board, we've not paid nearly enough attention to the workings of the Holy Spirit in the world. For example, have you ever considered the possibility that many, if not all, of the schisms across the centuries from Catholic/Orthodox to the Reformation to the splintering of the Protestant movement were/are the workings of the Holy Spirit? I'm not raising that possibility as fact, simply a consideration, as I wonder if Christianity would have spread around the world nearly so fast without the various ecclesial break-ups which caused one faction or the other to venture farther out into the "frontier".
Something to think about, at the least. Perhaps we needed to be torn asunder before the day can come when we are all sewn back together again... I suspect that when that final day arrives the Church of Jesus Christ will have no other name than that.
Honestly, I think these splinterngs are not of the Holy Spirit, for at the last supper Jesus prayed that we may all be one as He and the Father are one.
Can God bring incredible good, even out of evil? Certainly. The conclusion you draw would be, in my eyes, God drawing good out of evil, not the workings of the Holy Spirit.
But here we enter that old debate of God's Active Will versus God's permissive Will...Does God will bad things or just permit them so that He may draw good from them? Jesus answered this question when they asked Him who sinned, that a man he healed had his deformity. Jesus answered that it was not due to sin but only so that they could see the Glory of God.
Good thought provoking comments. Thanks.
I probably wasn't as clear in my comments as I should have been. I certainly don't think that every schism was of the Holy Spirit - only the possibility that some were. For instance, the split that is most likely about to occur in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is definitely not of the Holy Spirit. Those in our denomination who deny the divinity of Jesus, and advocate strenuously for the ordination of unrepentant homosexuals are clearly working for "the other side".
At the same time, there shouldn't be much argument that the "church wars" and schisms of Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries provided the impetus which resulted in the Christianization of North America much earlier than would have occurred otherwise. Or do you not agree?
... And no, I will not stop defending my faith, because fools will not heed Peter Kreeft's Godly wisdom and stop attacking it.
... when the fool next to you turns his gun on you instead of the common enemy. For in so doing he fights in reality for the enemy, whether he realize it or admit it or not. As far as the false gospels of the Mormons or the JW's. God will sort that out. All we can do is witness to the Truth and let the Holy Spirit handle the rest. If one lumps Catholicism in with Mormonism and JWism, one neither understands Catholicism nor the Gospel.
You got comments, not the muzzle. Different things entirely, but I understand your point of view. Agree with you (and Kreeft), or I'm one of them. It's not news to you; I AM one of them.
I understand all four, and three of them don't line up with the Gospel. Grandpa asked me "If you argue with a fool, who's the fool?"
I'll not trouble you further.
The point of agreement. Yet most catholics I know, placed their trust in the sacraments; going through the motions by rote. There is no understanding, and you (all) may be the exceptions.
It's what I hold to, and keeps me going. My heartache is that the catholic church makes it difficult to SEE Jesus through all the smoke and mirrors they put in the way. It's a wonder to me that anyone comes to Christ through the catholic church.
I agree that's wrong - just as wrong as all the Charismatics I know who say, "We don't need no theology - we've got the Holy Ghost."
Many who call themselves by the name of Christ know little or nothing about the Divine man they profess to follow. I can't say whether or not that makes them Christian, but that doesn't necessarily make them Catholic. The entire Church Militant suffers from having tares among the wheat
Shalom.
Please provide the appropriate citations from Scripture to back up this statement.
"That's real good. I use that line on the catholics, too. They don't reply with cites, either."
Neither can catholics prove a negative.
Reformed Baptist.
Excellent choice. I didn't have that option until I moved out of the house. Coming from the darkness into the light really improved my life.
What church do you attend? I want to avoid it like the plague it is (explicit and deliberate insult).
Reformed Baptist. Funny, I don't feel insulted. Try again. There are a lot of Ex-catholics here.
My own plank is still in the process of being hatcheted, routered, sawed, gouged, dynamited...
Things are somewhat blurry, but there are clear spots in my vision.
Ex-catholic, and thank God!
At the same time, there shouldn't be much argument that the "church wars" and schisms of Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries provided the impetus which resulted in the Christianization of North America much earlier than would have occurred otherwise. Or do you not agree?
I'm not so sure. Columbus saw to it that his voyages included a missionary element. Also, notwithstanding the fact that the conquistadors' chief motivation was loot, there's no question that they perceived the horror of the Aztec human sacrifice culture as demonically and essentially anti-Christian, and swiftly supplanted it with Christianity (and their own colonial rule, to be sure). And French Jesuits were very active among Indians in Canada and the Mississippi Valley. The earliest English settlements OTOH were either commercial (Virginia and the Massachusetts Bay Colony), or else religious separatists not interested in evangelization but merely freedom from Crown interference (the Mayflower colony, Roger Williams, William Penn, etc.) As late as the mid-1700s, the English colonists' relative indifference to missionary work proved a disadvantage during the French and Indian war, as the historical French effort at establishing a religious and diplomatic presence among the Indians paid off with an alliance that left the English exposed on many fronts.
You say that if it isn't in the Bible, it's a cult. I therefore assume that you base your beliefs on the doctrine of sola scriptura. However, since you cannot back your statement with a Biblical citation, your argument therefore is not supportable within your own theological framework.
Yet I'll ask the Holy Spirit to trouble your conscience incessantly till you see the Truth. I will trouble with you, but by prayer, not words. May God Bless you abundantly.
Yet I'll ask the Holy Spirit to trouble your conscience incessantly till you see the Truth. I will trouble with you, but by prayer, not words. May God Bless you abundantly.
Yet I'll ask the Holy Spirit to trouble your conscience incessantly till you see the Truth. I will trouble with you, but by prayer, not words. May God Bless you abundantly.
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.