Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by the_conscience
I just witnessed a couple of Orthodox posters get kicked off a "Catholic Caucus" thread. I thought, despite their differences, they had a mutual understanding that each sect was considered "Catholic". Are not the Orthodox considered Catholic? Why do the Romanists get to monopolize the term "Catholic"?
I consider myself to be Catholic being a part of the universal church of Christ. Why should one sect be able to use a universal concept to identify themselves in a caucus thread while other Christian denominations need to use specific qualifiers to identify themselves in a caucus thread?
I think it’s a legitimate question.
I think, though, that one could burn a lot of time on it, like negotiating the seating at peace talks.
Part of OUR theory of what we are is that we are the Universal or Catholic Church. We kind of have to realize that it’s only because not everybody shares this view that the question comes up at all.
I know of some scholars who seem to resent that the Eastern Churches call themselves “Orthodox” for analogous reasons. Are not Machen’s Presbyterians “orthodox?”
More artificially, I could pretend to imagine saying the Presbyterians do not have REAL presbyters, the Episcopalians ditto bishops, the Baptists ditto Baptism.
(I wonder if the Lutherans have real luther? Hmmm. Probably not all of ‘em, huh?)
So I think it’s a legit question, but discussing it could prevent other more important matters.
“But “doctrine” is just another word for the many, coherent truths found in Scripture ordained by a rational God for our good.”
“Rather our job as Christians is to come to the right understanding of doctrine and the very nature of God. And in doing so, correct doctrine is life changing.”
My argument is not that truth is unimportant, or that doctrine is just something we have feelings about. However, God - in scripture - doesn’t teach us ‘doctrine’. It isn’t a systematic theology review.
The Trinity is based on scripture, but scripture doesn’t explicitly state it in a formula. Apparently, it isn’t something we need to explicitly know for salvation or holy living. It is still true, and someone who studies and meditates on scripture will conclude it is true, but the means of teaching is important too - and God doesn’t teach us the Trinity by statement.
Dr E & I disagree on predestination - what it is and how it works...although I will say that in our Sunday School class today, for the first time in 30+ years, someone mentioned ‘TULIP’. What matters isn’t the intellectual belief or rejection of TULIP, but what God has revealed to each of us about Himself.
Suppose I’m wrong in rejecting TULIP...it may be that there are other areas in my life that need transformation more, and God is dealing with those issues first.
Or vice versa.
Doctrinal truth is something that needs to be worked into our lives, and only when it is worked into our lives will we begin to comprehend it as anything more than a logical conclusion. As I said, I became a Christian close to 40 years ago influenced by ‘you must be born again’, but I’m now seeing it and realizing implications that passed me by for 40 years.
True understanding comes from a transformed life. Maybe it is a spiral - we learn a bit, get it worked into our lives, then learn more and work THAT into our lives. But God is in the business of conforming us to the image of Jesus, not handing us all the answers on a plate.
Just some thoughts. I confess I’m concerned by the bitterness of many religion threads. I took a break for a week or so over Christmas and felt like I had taken a bath. One Orthodox brother who taught me a number of things has recently decided not to post any more. About a month ago, he reminded me that some of our discussions are fine between two old bulls, but could be damaging for someone new to the faith or even investigating the faith. I’m trying to figure out what the right balance is between discussing and believing doctrine, and studying doctrine for its own sake - apart from the work of God in our lives.
And no, I don’t know the right answer.
What is more important than the question of what is the Church of Jesus Christ? What could possibly be more important? Whether the Pope is the Vicar of Christ? That seems to be a second level question.
Apparently it was quite important to quite a few Orthodox on this board.
This thread has been enlightening in exposing the presumptuous and sanctimonious positions of both the Orthodox and Romanists in their respective contention that they are the only true Church.
I think I'll stick with Augustine's distinction between the visible and invisible Church.
Barnes commentary on Colossians 1:24 - offered without comment from me:
“Verse 24. Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you. For you as a part of the Gentile world. It was not for the Colossians alone, but he regarded himself as suffering on account of his labours in preaching to the heathen at large. His trials at Rome had come upon him because he had maintained that the wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles was broken down, and that the gospel was to be preached indiscriminately to all mankind. See this illustrated in the Introduction, & 5.
And fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ. That which I lack of coming up to the sufferings which Christ endured in the cause of the church. The apostle seems to mean,
(1.) that he suffered in the same cause as that for which Christ suffered;
(2.) that he endured the same kind of sufferings, to some extent, in reproaches, persecutions, and opposition from the world;
(3,) that he had not yet suffered as much as Christ did in this cause, and, though he had suffered greatly, yet there was much that was lacking to make him equal in this respect to the Saviour; and,
(4.) that he felt that it was an object to be earnestly desired to be made in all respects just like Christ, and that in his present circumstances he was fast filling up that which was lacking, so that he would have a more complete resemblance to him. What he says here is based on the leading desire of his soul—the great principle of his life—TO BE JUST LIKE CHRIST; alike in moral character, in suffering, and in destiny. See Barnes “Philippians 3:10”. Having this strong wish, he had been led to pursue a course of life which conducted him through trials strongly resembling those which Christ himself endured; and, as fast as possible, he was filling up that in which he now fell short. He does not mean that there was anything lacking or deficient in the sufferings which Christ endured in making an atonement, which was to be supplied by his followers, so that their merits might be added to his in order to secure the salvation of men, as the Romanists seem to suppose; but that there was still much lacking on his part before he should be entirely conformed to the Saviour in his sufferings, and that his present condition was such as rapidly to fill that up. This seems to me to be the fair meaning of this expression, though not the one commonly given. The usual interpretation is, “that which remains to me of affliction to be endured in the cause of Christ.” But this seems to me to be cold and tame, and not to suit the genius of Paul.
In my flesh. In bodily sufferings.
For his body’s sake, which is the Church. See Barnes “Ephesians 1:23”.”
http://www.studylight.org/com/bnn/view.cgi?book=col&chapter=001
“There is a biblical example of how doctrine changes a life in 1 Kings 19:11-19. Recall how Elijah was so zealous for God and was in despair, not seeing progress. God visually showed Elijah that His power rest not in great strengths (earthquakes, wind, etc.) but in low whispers. Elijah got the message and went back more knowledgeable and strengthened to do God’s work. Correct doctrine changed Elijah’s outlook.”
Yet this came from God working in his life. It isn’t something someone told him, or that he read in a book, let alone the Internet. It was only when GOD showed it to him and how it applied to his life that it changes Elijah.
But clearly some are so eager to issue a verdict that they cannot delay long enough to understand the question, even when they're the ones asking it.
Not bad.
Yet, many many testimonies testify that reading the written Word caused them to see and understand, especially the book of Romans, Paul's great exposition of Christianity, so maybe it's both and instantaneous
1) You fail to understand the difference between prayer and worship. When you have dealt with your ignorance we can resume an intelligent discussion.
2)I don't know what the RCC (Raving Calvinist Cult) believes or not, but the Catholic Church does not ignore the Old Testament. It does recognize that it was fulfilled in the Resurrection of Christ and replaced with a New and Everlasting Covenant. It now provides clarity and context to the Gospel of Christ.
Amen.
Talk about muddled messes. Your theology is about as muddled as they come.
My theology is Christ’s.
I’ll say from the start that I naver studied theology, hermeneutics or even logic. In this, I probably represent a far greater number of people reading this forum than one might imagine judging from the types of posts that appear here.
We are the kind who get relegated to the devotional and caucas threads. But be assured—we are reading posts here.
“I confess I’m concerned by the bitterness of many religion threads”
So am I. There are times when I thought that many of them were such that the Lord could look out at it all and say “An enemy has done this.”
I, too, like your Orthodox brother, have just about decided not to post anymore. And I, too, took a recent vacation from the forum, only to come back after a while and find it more contentious than I had remembered.
“I’m trying to figure out what the right balance is between discussing and believing doctrine, and studying doctrine for its own sake-apart from the work of God in our lives”
Your last phrase was one that hit home with me.
It is the work of God in our lives that matters so much.
Those mature in their faith understand that God works with us as He knows best with our own unique personhood—that personhood of ours that is his own marvelous creation. He Who made us knows us best and knows how best to draw us to Himself. In the end it is Gift-and-Response which come into existence as we “work out our salvation in fear and trembling”.
Sooner or later we finally get it—that God is bigger than we can ever express in our feeble human terms; that we know we are called to love Him and serve Him in this life and to be with Him forever in the life to come.
It’s unfortunate to see some posters ridicule the manner of another’s prayer, as has been done on this very thread. It’s unfortunate to see intentional ridicule and contempt posted here of forms of worship and prayer that don’t meet the narrow standards of another person or the confines of another creedal profession. There is something less than holy to look down on the practice and belief of someone who, not known in person, may actually be transformed and made new by the love and reading of Scripture and the transformaton of his life by the love of the Lord. I count myself among those kind of people. I became a Catholic as a young adult over 60 years ago and it made of me what St. Paul writes: “the man who is in Christ Jesus is a new creation”.
Sure there is a place for this kind of debate and discussion but as time passes, for me at least, the acrimony on these threads has done more to tune me out than count me in.
Perhaps this actually IS a place where the educated and intellectual meet at one level of discourse and those not so educated and intellectual can stay in the confines of devotionals.
In the latter case, I think I can find all that I need in the worship of God at Mass in the community of my fellow Catholics and in lectio divina.
God bless us all.
ROE
No, that was never the debate. The question merely centered around who could claim the language that implied that their particular CAUCUS was the default Church.
Thank you...yes they can do that but I don’t want to be the one that leads off course, well....on second thought sometimes I’m glad there’s a breather.
We all are. While the salvific work of Christ was done once for all, and it is sufficient to redeem anyone, an individual is not saved until he is justified by his works, as the gospel makes clear (Romans 2:6-10, 2 Peter 1:10, Matthews 25:31-46).
Further, we need prayers of others, especially of the righteous ones for our own salvation: Acts 7:59, 2 Timothy 2:10, 1 Timothy 2:1, James 5:16, and many times where prayers on behalf of another is offered or solicited).
The passage in question, Col. 1:24, adds another aspect, and that is redemptive suffering. What St. Paul says is that a prayer for others does not have to be a formal prayer: the suffering itself build up a merit that the Church can then apply to those in spiritual need.
So, yes, we all can participate in the suffering of Christ, and when we do it is instrumental of our own redemption and the redemption of others.
Such is the great wonder that the suffering of Christ has worked for us.
Amen.
1Co 2:13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
LOL.
VERY WELL PUT, I think:
###
True understanding comes from a transformed life. Maybe it is a spiral - we learn a bit, get it worked into our lives, then learn more and work THAT into our lives. But God is in the business of conforming us to the image of Jesus, not handing us all the answers on a plate.
And I think this is fine:I believe this is designed like this simply so that we have to come back to the Father to refresh ourselves. If we think of Love as a verb (say, Loving), it is simply not able to BE and to be static. We derivative critters can be no more than conduits which means an in-flow AND an out-flow are required.
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.