Posted on 06/22/2006 12:39:38 PM PDT by sionnsar
Good point. It's kind of like the way fans of Roe V. Wade hide behind stare decisis.
Yes, stare decisis is a good illustration. Thanks.
"I think the Church is that body that is descended from the body that Jesus started:"
________________________________________
As I am sure you are aware, one of the never ending discussions here is about the primacy, or lack thereof, of the Roman Catholic Church. Are you ascribing to the view that because they claim succession through Peter that they are "The CHURCH"?
They went from Jerusalem, to Judea, to Samaria, to the uttermost parts of the earth.
But they WERE NOT just anyone who decided to hang out a shingle with the words "First Church of the Stuff We Think Is Right."
"If they can't demonstrate their connection to the early Church, then where is their authority? After all Jesus said that the Church would be unconquerable and that "the gates of hell would not prevail" against it."
______________________________________
The source of all authority on earth today rests in SCRIPTURE. It is the only source we have that is the inerrant WORD of GOD. All other sources, no matter how long or fine their history, come from man's opinion and has to be viewed with caution. If you fall into the trap of placing your FAITH in anything other than JESUS, such as a long established church, you are setting yourself up to be misguided.
Well I guess we have a fundamental difference of opinion.
I rather like the idea that a faithful believer should not need to abandon the ship to the pirates and head for the life boats. In my view of things, the ship of Jesus Christ always repels boarders.....eventually......after a fight, and it's the brigands who depart.
I also believe that apostates are emboldened by the idea that everything can be changed by a simple vote and sufficient lobbying and advertising. It's simply saying that the Church is yours for the taking......given the right degree of planning and strategy.
I'm more for the "Moses model".
He descended from the mountain with the commandments engraved in stone, not written in erasable crayon.
The only thing "authority" is good for is for keeping people squashed under your thumb and calling someone else a heretic, even if the person doing the name-calling is the one who is heretical.
I try not to confuse my summation of historic Christianity with the inspired Word of God.
They must ALSO be the spiritual descendants of the early Christians in my view.
Discounting brothers and sisters because they follow the inspired scripture is not in the spiritual lineage of the early church.
It is not the language that bothers me so much as the interpretation of it. It goes back to John Wesley, who could not decide whether he was Calvinist or Arminian. An enormously gifted evangelist; a fuzzy thinker.
Anyway, I dislike much of what I find in Catholic hymnbooks, but I am always delighted to see a Charles Wesley hymn announced.
C. Wright Mills, the radical writer, said that power consisted of three basic types: Authority, manipulation, and force. Authority is the legitimate kind. It is not wrong to have captains and mates in charge of the ship; it is wrong for them to abuse their positions and resort to manipulation and force. This is certainly what has happened in the ECUSA. It has even happened occasionally in the Catholic Church. The devil's henchmen are everywhere.
Wesley was trying hard to be a calvinist in the tradition of Arminius.
Arminius was, of course, a professor at a major calvinist university and a preacher in a major calvinist pulpit.
He was examined many times and allowed to remain, and it was not until after his death that he was found theologically wanting.
My own sense was that he had a more expansive view of what Calvin taught and was able to explain it in person, but that his followers were not.
Two points there: Calvin was not a Calvinist; Wesley was not a Wesleyan. Goes with the territory. When great men are dead, their followers tend to get off the track they laid down. They simply don't have the same charisma.
The RCC has a traceable lineage back to the early church. They aren't the only ones who can, though. And then there's always the issue of spiritual lineage to keep excesses in check.
Wasn't the Community of Christ formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints?
Yes. More precisely, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Do we know each other?
To carry the methaphor even farther, there are those in "organizations calling themselves 'churches'" who are like a brightly-colored wire with nothing but insulation: strip them down, and there is nothing left...
Thanks for the reminder. I stand corrected.
You are so welcome. Thank you for your kind reply.
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.