Replies

[roamer_1:] So, IOW, it's just fine to assign offices and authorities which God did *not* sanction, to the benefit of human nature?

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.

You make many good points for further discussion - well stated, with respect and, to me, good will. How refreshing it is. I can only respond to this one right now.

What evidence is there that what we now have is what Christ intended?

THAT is the $64,0000 Dollar Question. (Now I have really dated myself!)

I can only answer in the light of my own feeble struggle toward the truth. First, came a dissatisfaction with incoherence/contradictory conclusions that I saw as the fruit of the multiplied sola traditions. I simply could not understand then, nor can I today, why God could not make Himself clearer.

Full disclosure: I knew about the Roman Catholic church - (I am married to one!), but I had a life long bias and bigotry against that tradition; along with a heaping helping of true ignorance.

It was my Catholic wife (bless her) who suggested that I attend an Orthodox Divine Liturgy. At that time, the local Greek Orthodox were using borrowed space (a Catholic church in the next town from me) and flew in a priest from out of town once a month. I attended my first Divine Liturgy along with maybe 25 others.

It was that experience that broke through my carefully crafted, self made and as I thought, air tight belief. I saw worship worthy of the Creator and Sustainer of the universe that day. Then I had the challenge of finding what it was all about.

You ask for evidence. All I can halfway confirm is the evidence of my own experience. All the objection that any sola believer worth his salt could raise - I raised them one by one - I got answers.

I expect my answer to be unsatisfying and unconvincing, but, it's what I can bring. Other evidences to there being "one holy catholic and apostolic church, visible upon this earth today are repeatedly posted here and repeated ignored or poorly engaged, for the most part. imo.

ps - and simply for clarity - I will not respond on an open thread, to any comments/questions concerning the division between the Eastern and Western traditions of the one holy and catholic, apostolic church.