Historically, that's the reason there have been Councils, the prototype being the one in Jerusalem, so they'd all be in one Body, with one Head, led by the same Holy Spirit.
Really, a straw man argument Mrs. Don-o?Historically, that's the reason there have been Councils, the prototype being the one in Jerusalem, so they'd all be in one Body, with one Head, led by the same Holy Spirit.On the issue of church discipline, which involves moral issues typically and or disputes among members, all that matters is what Scripture says to do or not do. The local church has responsibility to handle these things and enact church discipline, if necessary.
It appears that perhaps you or others don't understand that believers in Christ see themselves as Christians first. Their first allegiance is to Him. The worship in various assemblies locally.
In matters of theology, the pejorative, made-up groups you posted would belong to a larger group of affiliated churches.
There have been councils to respond to threats from without and within the historic churches.Again, there is only one real gathering, one body, one Head, and one Spirit. It just isn't the Roman denomination. It is every true believer in Christ, of all time. He has local gatherings throughout the world. Also has quite the large assembly in eternity I read...
Yeah. But you end up with, “Well, Mom’s a Free-Will Baptist but Dad’s a Calvinist, Antonia’s Pentecostal, and Aidan’s United Methodist —so you could get 5 different answers from 4 churches, and there’s just one Bible so that’s no problem, right? right?”
***
1: That’s the slippery slope fallacy.
2: And doesn’t consider the possibility that Rome might be WRONG. In which case, it’s leading everyone into the path of sin and hellfire.
3: Despite the differences, those denominations confess salvation by grace alone, not we-say-grace-but-your-works-have-to-be-good-enough.
I see this hypothetical "5 different answers from 4 churches...there's just one Bible" straw man tossed out frequently by those who seem to make the same mistakes over and over again in their attempts to disparage the concept of sola Scriptura and non-Catholic churches in order to assert an elitist, superior authority of their own church. Funny thing is, even Roman Catholics don't all agree on everything - even on some of the things they are supposed to.
I think we can distinguish between what are the major tenets of the Christian faith and minor ones or what Scripture calls "disputable matters"? The reasons there were Councils like the first century Jerusalem one was to settle the matter of what the gospel required of people. What made that one authoritative was the presence of actual Apostles and the absence of the New Testament body of Scripture which established what the major tenets of the Christian faith consisted of and remained the authority once all the Apostles had died. Subsequent councils (at least for the first few centuries) established a code of sorts, or a creed, that everyone agreed identified what those major tenets are (the Nicean creed, for example). The churches were in agreement about what the Christian faith was. They held to these beliefs in unison while allowing that there could be freedom over minor issues - in the major things, unity; in minor things, liberty; in all things, love.
In your hypothetical above, I think the question should be WHAT specific belief are you presuming would be different between a Free-Will Baptist versus a Calvinist, Pentecostal or United Methodist? Predestination, maybe? Arguments can be made on both sides, and contrary to what some think, it IS a minor point. The Deity of Jesus Christ? I'd say each one of those denominations accept that major tenet with the possible exception of some Pentecostals. But we know to not believe Jesus is God is heresy. How do we know this? Because we can prove it by Scripture - God did not leave us to wonder about these important things.
Councils plural?
Just WHY would there be a need for more than one?
Didn't get it quite 'right' to begin with?
the prototype being the one in Jerusalem Please clue me in to this one, so I can seen where y'all started from.
Historically, that's the reason there have been Councils, the prototype being the one in Jerusalem, so they'd all be in one Body, with one Head, led by the same Holy Spirit.
Just like these non differences between Roman Catholicism and the Easter Orthodox, right?
You know, the differences that caused the Great Schism some 1,000 years ago that has had no resolution since then?
All within one supposedly unified church.
In light of the major differences between just these two branches of Catholicism, I wonder how Catholics can, with a straight face, critique and condemn non-Catholic Christianity for having "doctrinal differences".
The Eastern Orthodox differ with Roman Catholicism on these issues:
The Holy Spirit (the filioque)
In EO - The third person of the Trinity, proceeding from the Father alone as in the original Nicene Creed. The Father sends the Spirit at the intercession of the Son. The Son is therefore an agent only in the procession of the Spirit.
In RC - 'When the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, He is not separated from the Father, He is not separated from the Son'.
Mary - Assumption and Immaculate conception of
EO - The Assumption is accepted and it is agreed that Mary experienced physical death, but the Immaculate conception is rejected. Orthodox belief is that the guilt of original sin is not transmitted from one generation to the next, thus obviating the need for Mary to be sinless.
RC - Both are dogmas of the church. The church has not as yet decided whether Mary actually experienced Physical death. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception states that Mary, was at conception 'preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin' and should not be confused with the virgin birth.
Pope - Authority of
EO - As the Bishop of Rome, he has a primacy of honour when Orthodox, not of jurisdiction. At present, his primacy is not effective as the papacy needs to be reformed in accordance with Orthodoxy. His authority is thus no greater or lesser than any of his fellow Bishops in the church.
RC - The Pope is the 'Vicar of Christ' i.e. the visible head of the church on earth and spiritual successor of St. Peter. He has supreme authority (including that over church councils) within Christendom (The Power of the keys).
Pope - Infallibility of
EO - Papal Infallibility is rejected. The Holy Spirit acts to guide the church into truth through (for example) ecumenical councils. This Orthodoxy recognises the first seven ecumenical councils (325-787) as being infallible.
RC - The Pope is infallible when, through the Holy Spirit, he defines a doctrine on faith and morals that is to be held by the whole church. This is a dogma and is therefore a required belief within Catholicism.
Purgatory
EO - An intermediate state between earth and heaven is recognised, but cleansing and purification occur in this life, not the next.
RC - A place of cleansing and preparation for heaven. Also a place where the punishment due to unremitted venial sins may be expiated.
I'd say these were the "biggies", but other differences also exist. These are explained here.
http://christianityinview.com/comparison.html
One body - all believers, redeemed born again, born from above followers of Jesus.
One Head - Jesus Christ
One Holy Spirit who indwells every born again, born from above followers of Christ.
Sorry Madam, but while a central magisterium of manifest men of God should be the goal (and Westminster affirms, "It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith..and authoritatively to determine the same"), rather than a divided "kingdom," the arrogance and recalcitrance of Rome is what necessitated the latter and she is doctrinally disqualified from having the very position she seeks to impose over all, and sets her contrary to the Acts 15 council you seek to enlist for support.
For whereas Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares under a Roman pope, this premise was not the basis for the validity and veracity of the council in Acts 15.
And which stands in contrast to that of Rome in other ways as well.
1. This was not called by any pope (cf. Can. 338 §1."It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council,,,") or emperor (as with the first 8). Paul actually was the only apostle to call a (local) council and with no mention of Peter, nor does Acts 15 say they went to see Peter, but the apostles collectively.
2. Rather than the church looking to Peter as her visible supreme head as Catholics are to do, much less reigning in Rome, after Acts 15 he is not even mentioned in Acts, and is only mentioned in two of the epistles besides his own two, nor in the messages to the churches in Acts 2+3). Despite the extensive instructions on the life of faith nowhere therein is there any reminder to the churches to submit to him as head (and who is listed after James in Gal. 2, and is the only apostle to be rebuked in Scripture) nor even mentioned among the over 30 people Paul mentions in Romans 16 (the "protection polemic" is absurd).
Instead, holy Spirit-filled (far more than I) humble Peter is manifest as the initial street-level leader among the 12, and lead pastor of the first church and the first one to bind (in discipline) and loose, to use the gospel keys to the kingdom, into which believers are translated upon believing the gospel. (Col. 1:13,14), and exercising a general pastoral role in his own epistles as "an apostles," "an elder." But for whom no planned successor is mentioned or intimated, nor for the apostle James after his martyrdom in Acts 12:1,2.
3. And rather than preaching the baptismal regeneration gospel of Rome, Peter preached the evangelical gospel to Cornelius and company, that of the washing of regeneration by faith, of remission of sins by faith in the risen Lord Jesus. (Acts 10:43; 15:7-10) Which is interpretive of Acts 2:38, that it is the faith behind baptism that appropriates the washing of regeneration, and thus the promise of it is given to those who will believe as well as to those who manifest that faith.
4. Peter did not provide the conclusive judgment in Acts 15 as to what should be done, but testified (along with Paul and Barnabas) to the evangelical gospel of grace, and exhorted liberty to the converts, while it was James who in confirmation to the above provided the definitive, Scripturally substantiated judgment as to what should be their position and its dissemination, which is what settled the matter .
5. The principle of conciliar judgment flows from the OT authoritative binding magisterial office, to which conditional obedience is enjoined, and disobedience punished, (Dt. 17:8-13) but which was not infallible nor was this charism ever promised or essential for preserving faith.
6. The church did not begin according to the Catholic model for assurance of Truth, with veracity assured to the magisterial stewards of express Divine revelation, and with the laity being unable to assuredly correctly ascertain the contents of Scripture, to know what it consists of, apart from faith in her.
Instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
7.Catholics do not have a Acts 15 magisterium nor do we, as a judgment, while the limited unity of the prima NT church was under incontrovertibly manifest Scriptural men of God, "in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left." (2 Corinthians 6:4-7. KJV) Which was their basis for validity, not the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is to be the basis for assurance of RC teaching for faithful RCs.
8. While men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither popes and councils claim to do so.
However, God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; Psalm 102:18; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15) and unlike leadership which can go South, Scripture never does.
9. While evangelicals often disagree on the meaning of Scripture, such overall testify to greater unity in basic beliefs than those whom Rome manifestly considers members in life and in death, as Catholics disagree on the meaning of both Scripture and the teachings of their church. And it is not the place of the laity to determine who ois self-excommunicated, lest they be in conflict with leadership.
10. Seeing as Catholicism cannot be the one true NT church, as distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed, and has become an unholy amalgamation with the extremes from cultic traditional devotees to liberal proabortion, prohomosexual members, then conservative evangelicals cannot become part of this distressed deformation of the NT church. 11. "Protestantism" itself is too obtuse a term to have much meaning, but the most liberal denominations are typically those who are closest to Catholcis, which has a near-majority of liberals
12. The one true church church which the Lord promised to overcome the gates of Hell is not one particular organic church or groups of such (nor necessarily opposed to them), but is the Lord's body, the one true church to which He is married, since it uniquely only always consists 100% of true believers, and which spiritual body of Christ is what the Spirit baptizes ever believer into, (1Co. 12:13) while organic fellowships in which they express their faith inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares, with Catholicism and liberal Protestantism being mostly the latter.
Now for a long season Israel hath been without the true God, and without a teaching priest, and without law. But when they in their trouble did turn unto the Lord God of Israel, and sought him, he was found of them. (2 Chronicles 15:3-4. KJV) The following is what pertains to what I need and the body of Christ needs to do together, in which I came much short.
So they gathered themselves together at Jerusalem in the third month, in the fifteenth year of the reign of Asa. And they offered unto the Lord the same time, of the spoil which they had brought, seven hundred oxen and seven thousand sheep. And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul; That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. And they sware unto the Lord with a loud voice, and with shouting, and with trumpets, and with cornets. And all Judah rejoiced at the oath: for they had sworn with all their heart, and sought him with their whole desire; and he was found of them: and the Lord gave them rest round about. (2 Chronicles 15:10-15. KJV)