Not to the "benefit" but in recognition of human nature.
I think not. It is also human nature to bow down to idols and play with worry beads... so that's ok too, right?
No. It's human nature to worship. The God of Abraham comes to man to allow man to worship aright.
Israel's priesthood made the very same mistake. They are there as an example.
So, God had to personally intervene so we could get it right.
dono: Maybe I'm reading too much into your dismissal of hierarchy, But, the fact is that you can only have the, what did you call it - distributed model of church polity, because all the groundwork has been done for you.
roamer:What groundwork?
The seven ecumenical councils - or even the four that most Protestants seem to accept. I believe you previously said that you would accept what they teach, as long as they "line up with scripture." But, that is a cop out. The disputants all had scripture to back their differing beliefs. Both could not be right, regardless of how many scriptures they could throw down.
There was more going on than a Bible debate; and what we receive today as (small o) orthodoxy was produced as a result of the Holy Spirit guiding into all truth, fulfilling the promise Jesus made to His Apostles.
Not to the "benefit" but in recognition of human nature.
Human nature is fallen and corrupt. As the saying goes:
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." - Lord Acton, Historical Essays and Studies.
These, my FRiend, are words which remain ever fresh - As new as the day they were first penned.
What evidence is there that what we now have is what Christ intended? Do you suppose that when He comes, He will call for the construction of an Orthodox or Romish Cathedral on Mount Moriah? Does the Prophecy say that we will go to Zion to sing and chant in the fashion you have grown accustomed to?
Perhaps one should ask: "How did Judah fare in changing what the Father said was good and proper?"
Do you suppose the same could be applied to us today? What could sanctify us more, or better than the particular means that God Himself has demanded of us ("In spirit and in truth," and all that)?
[roamer_1:] I think not. It is also human nature to bow down to idols and play with worry beads... so that's ok too, right?
No. It's human nature to worship. The God of Abraham comes to man to allow man to worship aright.
But DOES he really "worship aright?" Is this the way that God has told us is right? HINT: God does not change.
[roamer_1:] Israel's priesthood made the very same mistake. They are there as an example.
So, God had to personally intervene so we could get it right.
True. But what He said and showed us, and what is now performed in the guise of "tradition and revelation" are two utterly different things altogether.
[roamer_1:] What groundwork?
The seven ecumenical councils - or even the four that most Protestants seem to accept. [...]
No Protestant accepts the councils without reservations (Anglican, Lutheran, and Methodists have exceptions) Most (the rest) do not accept the councils at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_council#Acceptance_of_the_councils
I believe you previously said that you would accept what they teach, as long as they "line up with scripture."
As a point in fact, I said:
Well, setting aside the fact that Anglicans and Lutherans embrace the first seven councils to some degree, I think the prevailing agreement among the greater Protestant horde lies in the 5 solas, with sola fide and sola scriptura being the most durable. To the degree that those councils can be examined in the light of the 5 solas, therein we might find line-item agreements. I doubt that any Protestants (Lutherans and Anglicans included) would embrace those councils without exception.
Src
Now, that being said, if the councils were defined by sola scriptura, there would generally be no problem, so in essence, your statement is correct.
But, that is a cop out. The disputants all had scripture to back their differing beliefs. Both could not be right, regardless of how many scriptures they could throw down.
So the thing to do is what is wrong, then? For the sake of unity? No. That cannot be right.
If you want to take the time, put up a series of [Ortho/General Protestant caucus] dealing with the councils, and I am certain you will get an idea which portions are able to be negotiated... But as I said, the first hump to get over is the difference in polity.
Of course, the Reformed tried to open a dialog with the Orthodox/5 Solas the other day, and that was not met politely. So maybe the first hump is getting past your brethren.
Nice chatting with you.