Whenever man - traveling his worldline - projects his own mind onto God he ends up anthropomorphizing God into a caricature, an imagining, a small “god” his puny, mortal mind can comprehend.
10-4 as far as it goes. I'd say reason is tainted and crippled, but not so damaged that it cannot be healed and cannot perceive SOME basic things about God. A lot (not all, just a lot) of the caricaturing is because people stopped thinking too soon.
It has served man well since the days of Aristotle.[and earlier] But even in observing the physical realm, the law does not hold. Whether one sees a particle or a wave depends on what he is looking for.
In the natural sciences that is a not a sign that the excluded middle doesn't hold but that the notion that something is either a particle or a wave needs to be re-thought. The apparent failure of the law just calls the premises that lead to that failure up for re-examination. And so we develop terms like "quantum" (literally "how much?" or "that much" )which implicitly acknowledge that the problem is not yet solved
And yet there are beliefs which say that Jesus Christ must be either man or God. He can’t be both because of the Law of the Excluded Middle. Other beliefs say that because of the Law of Identity, the Father, Son and Spirit are separate Gods. And there are many other such examples that have led to various doctrines and traditions of men and disputes among the members of the body of Christ.
Ah. we have a VERY different innerleckshual approach, and reach different conclusions. Heres how I consider the process which led to the Chalcedonian And Nicene definitions of two natures in one person, and three persons in one ousia (after the transubstantiation thread I ain't saying "substance" again without looking over my shoulder and checking my firearm):
It's a lot like what i just said about "quantum". Looka this: (1)If we say THREE Gods, well that's polytheism which reject because the Bible tells us so AND because it just doesn't make sense. (2)But if we say EITHER that IHS is not God OR that IHS is kind of mooshed in with the Father and the Holy Spirit that leads to other contradictions of what seems to be in Scripture AND, again, of thought. For example: "God so loved the world that he gave, well, one of the first things He made that all who believe in, well, something or other might be saved ... ." It just doesn't have the same zing, does it? Gos up in heaven saying, "Okay, I need a volunteer for a suicide mission. Which of you creatures will step forward"? And patripassionism just doesn't hold up against the seemingly incomprehensible but seemingly unavoidable assertion of the impasssability of God.
SO in both cases the Church comes up with a "quantum": We don't know what it is, but the only way you can talk about it without leading yourself down the wrong path is "Two natures (not confused), one hypostasis" and that goes for "three persons, one God." It's kind of a negative approach: "We don't really get what these things mean, but It has to be like this."
So again, I don't think "quanta" or the great Dogmata are signs that reason is broken, but rather signs that Prayer, Scripture, Study, dialogue, all with frequent if not constant appeals to the Holy Spirit lead humanity, with reason on board, to the truth.
But it IS the body of Christ, we think.Um, that's what I said? sort of almost? Bearing in mind what I've written elsewhere recently about people who are members of the body but not "full" members?See, there’s a wedge right there. LOL!
The body of Christ consists of all those chosen from the foundation of the world for redemption by the blood of the Lamb, regardless of when the person was, is or will be in the flesh.
I see none of the quotes you put up as contradicting the assertion.
Also, is "exclusive" always, inevitably, by definition a bad thing? I don't think it's the RC exclusivity that's the problem. I think you don't agree with the standards, that you think they exclude for the wrong reasons.
I just say that because "exclusivity" is a buzzword and buzzwords are hints that we need to slow down and see what we really mean. To say "exclusivity of the 'club'" is, I think, really unfair -- a cheap shot. Are all organizations with standards "clubs"? Is it "exclusive" of doctors not to give me penicillin on the "clubby" grounds that I happen to be allergic to it? Is it exclusive not to compel people to receive the sacraments? Isn't it a tad rough to say, "I don't want to receive but you're wrong not to let me."
Am I exclusive because I don't have sex with the thousands of gorgeous babes who are constantly throwing themselves at me on the clubby grounds that I married the boss-lady and unto her only shall I cleave?
(Or am I just tragically deluded? Yeah, I think probably that.)
And this is where the dreadful name of "gnostic", whether rightly or wrongly, comes into the picture. And certainly there's a profound difference about ecclesiology, which means at least one of us is in error if not downright heretical.
From our POV, +Paul "touched back" NOT with the whole Church but with the leaders, "those who were of repute", in private conference, and laid before them what he had been preaching, lest somehow [he] should be running or had run in vain.]
Now people can talk about "edifice" all they like, but mockery and perseveration don't add a thing to the discussion. They rather hinder charity and clear thinking.
As we look back on the story in Galatians and Acts, we have no question that Paul (a) was confident he had a calling, and (b) was right to be so confident. But he, as I say, "touched back" some 3 years later with Cephas and then 14 years later, when presumably he was more mature in Christ, he touched back with what amounts to a committee of the Church leaders(can you say "curia?" - well sort of a proto- or embryonic curia, maybe) and is open to the possibility that he might be running or have been running in vain!
This is a remarkable act of humility, as admission that even the great Paul, with his unforgettable conversion experience, might still need to have his good work ratified -- even by those with whom he later quite pronouncedly and publicly disagrees.
There's no implication that Cephas is, himself and by himself, the bees knees. In fact Peter could be said to have be tossing up veils and wedges (I didn't know the apostle even WORE briefs -- and now you tell me they had wedgies.
No. wait.)
Ahem. To continue ... One can see that Paul had a stormy relationship with "those who were of repute", but still wanted his work to be checked by them.
(When rock climbing, I'd just as soon some suspicious, mistrusting guy checked my knots as someone who thought I was right all the time.)
Look at Cephas. He loved IHS yet denied Him. He had the vision of, ahem "inclusivity" and then wussed out before the Judaizing "circumcision party". It was to so weak a reed and his homies that Paul submitted his ministry for review.
Can we dare to think that our call and ministry is so certain, so much more certain than Paul's that we need not humble ourselves as he humbled himself? It was a very visible, all TOO visible, group of Church leaders to whom Paul went. Those clowns and yahoos were the then current crop of "those chosen from the foundation of the world."
The eternality of the call does not excuse us from dealing with, and submitting our call and ministry to the review of, the manifestly and obviously fallible and peccable (in their own persons) folks who bear the ministry of being our pastors. Otherwise we seem to be making ourselves greater than Paul.
P.S. I need you and Forest Keeper to talk about eternity.
Nevertheless I shall continue to accept as certain knowledge only the words of God fully and without additions, rationalizations or qualifications.
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. – Galatians 2:20
I could probably use a little narrowing of the issue :), but my first impression is that while a little expensive, eternity always makes a great gift. I usually go for the three-pack, which includes a couple of slatherables, along with some really nice smelling toilet water. (Can you imagine working in THAT factory? :) Talk about watching sausage being made.....
The eternality of the call does not excuse us from dealing with, and submitting our call and ministry to the review of, the manifestly and obviously fallible and peccable (in their own persons) folks who bear the ministry of being our pastors. Otherwise we seem to be making ourselves greater than Paul.
Sure, I have no problem with that if it's being done "through" a local church. When I taught a Sunday School class my curriculum had to get the blessing of our pastor. We discussed what reference books I was going to use, he made some great suggestions, and it was off to the races. Interestingly, that was before I became a Reformer. I'm not sure what would happen if today I wanted to teach a class on, say, Romans. My best guess would be that he would be fine with it if I gave full disclosure and maybe gave both sides of the issues on which there would be a difference.