Jesus didn't institute a church

[TheDag]

Whether Ekklessia translates directly as Church or not I cannot help but think that Christ intends unity of belief, both through the ages and in all places. I can only find a single communion in which that is the case.

If your problem is actually with apostolic succession and authority then I can only really point to the unity of our faith as evidence that succession and authority does play a part in God's plan. Judge the tree by it's fruit seems to me a sound way of examining the situation.

Perhaps you could define what you mean better. From what I think you're saying then orthodox most certainly is not the only communion that has what you state. There are others that exist in the country in the United Kingdom which shares the same belief not only in the UK but also around the whole world.

I could really care less about the number of denominations in protestantism, the problem is actually the sheer disunity of belief. I'm sorry but I cannot accept God as the author of confusion when scripture makes it quite clear that he is not.

You talk as if protestants are all of one denomination. That is mischaracterisation either deliberate or due to ignorance.

 

[KnightHospitaler]

the word Church, when interpolated into the text, is in error.

Ekklesia, is NOT church. Ekklesia is an assembly.

When you look at the scriptures in this light, you can see much more clearly the truth of the matter.

Matt.16
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my (assembly of believers), and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

so, the powerr of death will not prevail against Gods children. A wonderful promise! And it completely does away with the notion that He ever promised an error free institution.

Matt.18
[17] If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the (assembly of believers); and if he refuses to listen even to the (assembly of believers) let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.


another instance that flies in the face of authority of one orginization! We are to take them to the assembly of believers. NOT a church.

it really chages the claim that Jesus instituted the EO or RCC church, doesn't it!

Uh, have you noticed the title of this subforum dealing with theologies of the church by any chance? I'm really not seeing the contradiction.
Unless you're arguing that Christ instituted an anarchic democracy...in which case your average Pastor-centric non-denom church falls just as short as the Catholics and Orthodox.

 

[TheDag]

Protestants can't believe that their is authority with in the Church, they can't. How else can they defend there differences of opinion? But in ignoring structure, authority and hierarchy, they ignore Scripture..so much for their sola scriptura..

It is obvious from your post that you do not understand Sola Scripture. This is not surprising. Maybe your only new here but it has been explained hundreds of times yet orthodox and catholics still post what they think it is rather than what they are told it is.

How else can they defend there differences of opinion?

So how do you defend the difference of opinion amongst orthodox? Do you realise that orthodox and catholics don't agree on all issues yet they both claim they have the structure and authority and hierarchy. Doesn't help in the end though does it. Both catholic and orthodox claim to be the church Christ started and that the other group broke away from them. Once you've settled that then maybe you can carry on about differences of opinion between different protestant denominations.

Protestants can't believe that their is authority with in the Church, they can't.

I find it to be very few who don't believe in authority in the church or assembly of believers (those who don't I have only met on internet forums). The difference is in what kind of authority the person has. For example they say that no group of people can be infallable when speaking on behalf of the magisterum. Prostetants believe all are open to error. Of course not all catholics believe the magisterum gets everything right and that includes people involved in electing the new pope!

 

[TheDag]

Those men that was speaking of in the Gospel are also the men of the government and not teachers of truth. They were the pharasee's and did not love the Lord and IN FACT were the ones wanting Him put to death and you say we are to obey them? I get my authority from the Scriptures and Christ Spirit in me. I do not get my authority from Man when it comes to my Lord. He is my authority. For He is the only Head of His Church.

I'm very confused. You said we are to obey earthly authorities unless they told us to do something that is against God.
Kepha agreed with you.
You then say Kepha is saying you should obey earthly authorities and then go on to make it clear you would never listen to earthly authorities.

So do you or don't you think we are to take notice of earthly authorities as long as they don't tell us to go against God?

 

[KnightHospitaler]

Perhaps you could define what you mean better. From what I think you're saying then orthodox most certainly is not the only communion that has what you state. There are others that exist in the country in the United Kingdom which shares the same belief not only in the UK but also around the whole world.


You talk as if protestants are all of one denomination. That is mischaracterisation either deliberate or due to ignorance.

Having spent a bit of time hanging around the C of E, I'd urge you not to overplay the "unity of belief" bit there.

 

[KnightHospitaler]

I disagree for many reasons but mainly because Jesus spoke to Peter singular in Matthew 16, not plural and in John told him to "Feed his sheep."

But I do not want to debate this with you because I don't feel it is right for Catholics to debate Orthodox in Theology for obvious reasons.

But anyway, I liked the way you explained what the assembly of believers is.

We can both agree whole heartily that it is not only and just a lose body of believers everywhere and anywhere believing what they want as long as it is not "outside of Christ" (what ever that even means) and that Jesus was not establishing on Peter and the 12 a lose body of believers who are joined together through sola scripture.

As a dirty Protestant...
I agree actually. <g> The church is a body of believers bound together in word and sacrament, most particularly baptism and the eucharist.
And I've never understood the distinction between the majesterium and the ecumenical councils, save for the question of Papal Infallibility of course. What makes one acceptable to the Orthodox while the other is not?

 

[IamAdopted]

I'm very confused. You said we are to obey earthly authorities unless they told us to do something that is against God.
Kepha agreed with you.
You then say Kepha is saying you should obey earthly authorities and then go on to make it clear you would never listen to earthly authorities.

So do you or don't you think we are to take notice of earthly authorities as long as they don't tell us to go against God?

I listen to the authorities of the government unless they tell me I have to do something that contradicts scripture. Then I obey God rather than man. When it comes to My Lord I allow the Scriptures to be my authority. Not man at all. If one preaches contrary to what scripture says I throw that teaching by the way side. For Scripture is where truth Lies. In My assembly we submit to one another. No one Lords it over each other there.

 

[kepha31]

Originally Posted by kepha31
Jesus said that the unity of Christians would be objective evidence to the world that He had been sent by God (John 17:20-23). How can the world see an invisible "unity" that exists only in the hearts of believers?

We walk by faith, not by sight, and the things of God are hidden from those who do not have eyes to see. If you do not know how the witness of Jesus Christ as his light shines out from the hearts of all believers, and as his love is expressed between the brethren, does not serve as a witness to those who have eyes to see, my friend, you've blown it. All those who walk after the Spirit are drinking from the same well and very quickly recognize this in each other's company, even if they've never before met each other in their life (John 7:17, 1. John 4:6, Psalm 42:7). Those who have met the Lord know him, and they can recognize him in others, though not altogether perfectly. This very witness is, in fact, how I came to return to the Lord after a romp through liberal territory.

You missed the word “only”. The question does not presuppose a visible unity only, nor does it presuppose an invisible unity only. The question challenges the presupposition that unity is only invisible, and not visible, because the Bible does not support a strictly invisible unity of believers. Everything you say is true, I have no problem with that, but it still does not address the question. The question is how the world sees unity, not how believers see each other. Let’s look at the verse used in the original question:
John 17:20 And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me; 21 That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me.

I am not denying that unity is found in the hearts of believers, as you have mistakenly assumed. It is the world that cannot see any kind of unity if such a unity is found ONLY in the hearts of believers, because the world does not have the faith to see just invisible unity.
“…that the world may believe that thou hast sent me...” (verse 21)
“…and the world may know that thou hast sent me…” (verse 23)
The point of the question is to show that the world cannot see an invisible unity; there must be some kind of visible unity in order for Jesus’ prayer to make any sense. Therefore the belief that the church is solely invisible is false. Verse 21 - Jesus states that the visible unity of the Church would be a sign that He was sent by God. This is an extremely important verse. Jesus tells us that the unity of the Church is what bears witness to Him and the reality of who He is and what He came to do for us. There is only one Church that is universally united, and that is the Catholic Church. Only the unity of the Catholic Church truly bears witness to the reality that Jesus Christ was sent by the Father.
God answered Jesus prayer for unity, because the Catholic Church is universally united.

Matt. 5:14 - Jesus says a city set on a hill cannot be hidden, and this is in reference to the Church. The Church is not an invisible, ethereal, atmospheric presence, but a single, visible and universal body through the Eucharist. The Church is an extension of the Incarnation. (no Eucharist, no unity)

Matt. 12:25; Mark 3:25; Luke 11:17 - Jesus says a kingdom divided against itself is laid waste and will not stand. This describes Protestantism and the many thousands of denominations that continue to multiply each year.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus says, "I will build my 'Church' (not churches)." There is only one Church built upon one Rock with one teaching authority, not many different denominations, built upon various pastoral opinions and suggestions.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - Jesus gave the apostles binding and loosing authority. But this authority requires a visible Church because "binding and loosing" are visible acts. The Church cannot be invisible, or it cannot bind and loose.

John 10:16 - Jesus says there must only be one flock and one shepherd. This cannot mean many denominations and many pastors, all teaching different doctrines. Those outside the fold must be brought into the Church.

John 17:11,21,23 - Jesus prays that His followers may be perfectly one as He is one with the Father. Jesus' oneness with the Father is perfect. It can never be less. Thus, the oneness Jesus prays for cannot mean the varied divisions of Christianity that have resulted since the Protestant reformation.
There is perfect oneness only in the Catholic Church.

John 17:9-26 - Jesus' prayer, of course, is perfectly effective, as evidenced by the miraculous unity of the Catholic Church during her 2,000 year history.
See more at http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html#the_church-V

Hebrews 13:17 says, "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you." What is the expiration date of this verse?

I would venture to guess it's right about the time your organization begins "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," at which point "we ought to obey God rather than men." It was for this very reason--thinking that to add to or change God's ordinances was permissible--that Aaron's sons were put to death and that Israel was chastised when it wanted a king, and that Saul's kingdom was brought to ruin.

First of all, “"we ought to obey God rather than men." is from Acts 5, and I commented on it in post #36. It has nothing to do with Aaron or Saul. It seems taking this verse out of context is popular around here.
Acts 5:27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them,
28 saying, "We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and you intend to bring this man's blood upon us."
29 But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men.”
The “men” Peter and the Apostles are talking about is the Jewish leaders who told them not to preach the Gospel. To suggest this means Peter and Paul are saying not to obey future church leaders is insane bible twisting.
Secondly, "...would venture to guess it's right about the time your organization begins "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," is a bigotted remark. Provide reliable historical documentation of when such man-made doctrines began in the Catholic Church. I know you can't. No Protestant or anti-Protestant nondenominationalist can. Either document the charges or stop the lies.

The answer to the Hebrews 13:17 question is: There are no bible verses that have an expiration date. The “leaders” in Hebrews 13:17 refers to the New Testament church leaders, the bishops, and their legitimate successors.

First of all, we are not anti-church in that we are anti-congregational; we are anti-church in that we are anti-temple-worship.

I’ve never heard of Christians, Catholic or Protestant, worshipping a temple.

The very idea of a "sanctuary" completely contradicts everything Christ said to the Samaritan woman at the well.

A sanctuary is the area around the altar. (you have neither bishops nor altars, contrary to the Bible) Sanctuaries have absolutely nothing to do with anything Jesus said to the Samaritan woman. John 4:23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. 24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."
What makes you think Jesus is forbidding worship in holy places, when if fact He himself kept Sacred Tradition (i.e. Jesus was circumcised at a temple) and taught in the synagogs and temples?

Second, I'll grant you that Campbellites are a cult; to them salvation is found in one doctrine--their doctrine--and anyone who isn't part of their super-special club, which is really just a denomination in denial, isn't regenerate. They're also semi-Pelagians, but that's the mark of someone who hasn't read his Bible, not a cult... Anyway, you will actually find quite a unity in the theology of those who adopt the New Testament pattern of church life that is to be found in houses, but that does not come about because theology is focused on. It comes about because Christ and serving him only is focused on. Consequently, he only is the foundation of our invisible unity. I know a cessationist Independent Baptist who is saved, praise God, but I don't know that because of his doctrine--as one who believes the gifts continue and that meeting in a church building falls short of the mark, I couldn't possibly agree with him! But then I know Conservative Holiness people who match my beliefs to a tee who I know are spiritually dead. Doctrine is important--but it is not our Saviour. That is, of course, speaking between assemblies; within assemblies there must be a unity of purpose and instruction, but this is as much for spiritual survival as it is for a witness.

How do nondenominational fellowships, which have their own distinct theology, and often boast that they are “separated,” obey God’s command that Christians “all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10)?

Answer: they do not speak the same thing, they are divided, and they are not of the same mind and not in the same judgment.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Pillar.asp

 

[TheDag]

Having spent a bit of time hanging around the C of E, I'd urge you not to overplay the "unity of belief" bit there.

I'm not even playing the unity of belief in regards to the church of england/anglican church. I was not talking about that denomination at all.

 

[JoeV]

Amen! "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." We don't need to look to the self-proclaimed authority of some man with a funny hat to organize ourselves. Jesus Christ said he would build his church and that he would be the cornerstone thereof. Any man who presumes to come between a person and our Lord is an antichrist; if one must say Lo Vatican! to have confidence in the fulfillment of these promises, he is a sad specimen indeed.

They reason Catholics believe in the authority of the Vatican is because they believed that the Pope is the successor of Peter to whom Christ gave authority. So I would very much be willing to listen to man if Christ told me to, which I believe He did. I can't just ignore Matthew 16:18. I wouldn't be too quick to call their authority "self-proclaimed".

 

[NewToLife]

Perhaps you could define what you mean better. From what I think you're saying then orthodox most certainly is not the only communion that has what you state. There are others that exist in the country in the United Kingdom which shares the same belief not only in the UK but also around the whole world.

If you ignore the time component you are probably correct, but I clearly mentioned that the agreement should be historical as well as current with the phase 'through the ages'.

You talk as if protestants are all of one denomination. That is mischaracterisation either deliberate or due to ignorance.

Very clearly I dont believe protestants are one denomination, I'm surprised you could form such a view.

 

[xristos.anesti]

It is obvious from your post that you do not understand Sola Scripture. This is not surprising. Maybe your only new here but it has been explained hundreds of times yet orthodox and catholics still post what they think it is rather than what they are told it is.



So how do you defend the difference of opinion amongst orthodox? Do you realise that orthodox and catholics don't agree on all issues yet they both claim they have the structure and authority and hierarchy. Doesn't help in the end though does it. Both catholic and orthodox claim to be the church Christ started and that the other group broke away from them. Once you've settled that then maybe you can carry on about differences of opinion between different protestant denominations.


I find it to be very few who don't believe in authority in the church or assembly of believers (those who don't I have only met on internet forums). The difference is in what kind of authority the person has. For example they say that no group of people can be infallable when speaking on behalf of the magisterum. Prostetants believe all are open to error. Of course not all catholics believe the magisterum gets everything right and that includes people involved in electing the new pope!

I will not go into Sola Scriptura as we have no such a custom nor the Churches of God - so having no real knowledge of it I can not comment on it - I see the consequences and these are confusion and that says enough.

However, I do beg to differ when it comes to some alleged disagreements among Orthodox – now maybe I misunderstood what you said, for indeed there are disagreements between Latins and us – but we are for those disagreements out of communion – but if you allege some disagreements between Orthodox I will say that even there are some differences they are not disagreements for which we would break the communion – but the simple traditioned differences (of customs) that do not result in disagreement, thus these differences are not the same as disagreement. When it comes to the Protestants those differences do cause disagreement, for there is no communion between them.

As far as settling the reason why Roman Church and us are out of communion is concerned – those are the matter of the public record – they have been for the better part of 1000 years. Protestants on the other side using all Sola Scriptura are perpetuating division – and division is the biggest sin against the Church - for Sola Scriptura is nothing else but personal oppinion of one man made official doctrine - it seems that this is something the West likes a lot, from the man in Rome to any other man in the West. Roman bishop, some would say, was the first protestant.

Also, I see no logical methodology in using the fact that Church of Rome and we are out of communion as a proof that Sola Scriptura is a correct method.


Anyway, please forgive – this is just my view and God knows, I was and will be wrong.

Many years.

 

[TheDag]

If you ignore the time component you are probably correct, but I clearly mentioned that the agreement should be historical as well as current with the phase 'through the ages'.

Ok so show me how through the ages the orthodox have had that unity of belief from Adam and Eve. If that is too difficult start with Job. The point being is once again using a phrase like 'through the ages' requires a definition. Seem as the starting point claimed by orthodox and catholic only happened in NT times you can only claim through some of the ages. Therefore I see no problem with looking at the starting date of other denominations and saying they have had unity of belief from the moment they started and that is through the ages as well by one definition. It is now obvious what defintion you use.

Very clearly I dont believe protestants are one denomination, I'm surprised you could form such a view.

I formed my opinion from the following statement you made

I could really care less about the number of denominations in protestantism, the problem is actually the sheer disunity of belief. I'm sorry but I cannot accept God as the author of confusion when scripture makes it quite clear that he is not.

While the beginning you seem to acknowledge there are different denominations you then talk about disunity of belief. That disunity you are talking about is from denomination to denomination not within denominations. Your claim is that the orthodox denomination has a unity of belief. To make a fair comparision you would need to compare the orthodox to the catholic. There is a disunity of belief for a start about which group was the church that Christ founded. Not all catholic groups accept the authority of the bishop of Rome. So do we then say that there are different catholic denominations and if so then you would also need to compare orthodox to all those other catholic groups as well. If you don't you are not making a fair comparision to begin with.

 

[TheDag]

I will not go into Sola Scriptura as we have no such a custom nor the Churches of God - so having no real knowledge of it I can not comment on it - I see the consequences and these are confusion and that says enough.

I could say I see the consequences of the unity of belief that has occoured in times past and say that says enough. Instead though I choose to say there were people abusing power they had and people were corrupt and that was what caused the problems not the unity of belief. If you don't understand something I don't think it is wise to say you can see the consequences of it as you can not know if those consequences you see are only the result of what you think. Maybe there are other factors in there that contribute (like sinful nature).

so having no real knowledge of it I can not comment on it

Ok so why did you comment on it after saying you can't???
Once again with this post you have shown clearly you do not understand it yet you are condeming it. If you were to dismiss anything you don't understand then there would be alot of things of God that you would have to dismiss because it is not understood. For example the orthodox say they do not know how the bread and wine turn into the body and blood of Christ yet believe that it does. If you dismiss things that you don't understand then you would need to dismiss the eucharist. Are you prepared to do that? If not then I urge you to understand it first before you dismiss it. If you wish for sola scripture to be explained to you let me know via privsate message and I'll explain it.

However, I do beg to differ when it comes to some alleged disagreements among Orthodox – now maybe I misunderstood what you said, for indeed there are disagreements between Latins and us – but we are for those disagreements out of communion – but if you allege some disagreements between Orthodox I will say that even there are some differences they are not disagreements for which we would break the communion – but the simple traditioned differences (of customs) that do not result in disagreement, thus these differences are not the same as disagreement. When it comes to the Protestants those differences do cause disagreement, for there is no communion between them.

Define what you mean by communion. I see plenty of communion amongst protestant denominations. I also see communion between protestant denominations and catholic denomination.

Also, I see no logical methodology in using the fact that Church of Rome and we are out of communion as a proof that Sola Scriptura is a correct method.

Maybe the reason you see no logical methodology is because nobody has suggested there is a logical methodology! All I said was it is obvious you have no understanding of what Sola Scripture is. I was not trying to prove or disprove anything.

 

[NewToLife]

While the beginning you seem to acknowledge there are different denominations you then talk about disunity of belief. That disunity you are talking about is from denomination to denomination not within denominations.

I think that is clearly untrue, a lot of protestants are within demoninations that dont even come close to having any kind of unity of belief. Anglicanism for instance is the largest protestant denomination.

 

[TheDag]

I think that is clearly untrue, a lot of protestants are within demoninations that dont even come close to having any kind of unity of belief. Anglicanism for instance is the largest protestant denomination.

Ok I wasn't going to ask this originally but look at church history. Then answer this question According to orthodox beliefs if a christian denied God while suffering persecution can they still be saved? To save you looking up the answer I can tell you that there were two different views. One was yes they can still be saved the other was they have lost salvation forever (although how they could biblically support that i don't know???) So either there has not been unity of belief in orthodoxy through the ages like you claim or that is a disagreement and we can classify it the same way in other denominations by saying they are disagreements not differences. Of course I find it interesting how you and others want to focus on the Anglican/Church of England denomination and ignore other denominations. Why is that? As I said before there are other denominations that have the unity of belief and if you were to look honestly you would find them.

 

[xristos.anesti]

I could say I see the consequences of the unity of belief that has occoured in times past and say that says enough. Instead though I choose to say there were people abusing power they had and people were corrupt and that was what caused the problems not the unity of belief. If you don't understand something I don't think it is wise to say you can see the consequences of it as you can not know if those consequences you see are only the result of what you think. Maybe there are other factors in there that contribute (like sinful nature).

Many years –
[FONT=&quot]One does not have to understand principles of the cause to understand the factors of the effect. To state that what you said when it comes to “If you don't understand something I don't think it is wise to say you can see the consequences of it as you can not know if those consequences you see are only the result of what you think” is rather limiting and does not really fall under properties of reality and human observations. I do not have to understand the nuclear fusion to understand that my skin is burning – which is a consequence of said explosion. I do not have to understand God to understand that He is love and that I sinful have received mercy. Etc. So, if I may – I would suggest that you should re-inspect you opinion in this regard.
[/FONT]

Ok so why did you comment on it after saying you can't???

I did not comment ON IT – I commended on consequences OF IT.

Once again with this post you have shown clearly you do not understand it yet you are condeming it. If you were to dismiss anything you don't understand then there would be alot of things of God that you would have to dismiss because it is not understood. For example the orthodox say they do not know how the bread and wine turn into the body and blood of Christ yet believe that it does. If you dismiss things that you don't understand then you would need to dismiss the eucharist. Are you prepared to do that? If not then I urge you to understand it first before you dismiss it. If you wish for sola scripture to be explained to you let me know via privsate message and I'll explain it.

I am not dismissing anything – I am commenting on the consequences which I do not like – for they create confusion – I do not understand Sola Scriptura (for there is no such custom among Churches of God) – therefore it is a product of later ages. Anyway, as it may be – I do not like the consequences of it.

Define what you mean by communion. I see plenty of communion amongst protestant denominations. I also see communion between protestant denominations and catholic denomination.

Communion is the life of the Church manifested through partaking in Blood and Body of our Sweetest Lord and God Jesus Christ – that is manifested in confession of the true and Catholic faith that was traditioned once to the saints and preserved through steadfast living of the Church from the Pentecost until today, indeed until the second coming.

Maybe the reason you see no logical methodology is because nobody has suggested there is a logical methodology! All I said was it is obvious you have no understanding of what Sola Scripture is. I was not trying to prove or disprove anything.

Maybe, but also, maybe I see no logic for I was prescribing to it and am not any more – for there was no logic in it to start with – I and saw it to be a strange idea – something foreign. But that is all just maybe…

I used to subscribe to it for the first 10 years of my Christian living, but then it stopped being a viable option due to my discovered that it is not original to the aeon of Apostles and Early Church, but was a product of later ages.

 

[NewToLife]

Ok I wasn't going to ask this originally but look at church history. Then answer this question According to orthodox beliefs if a christian denied God while suffering persecution can they still be saved? To save you looking up the answer I can tell you that there were two different views. One was yes they can still be saved the other was they have lost salvation forever (although how they could biblically support that i don't know???) So either there has not been unity of belief in orthodoxy through the ages like you claim or that is a disagreement and we can classify it the same way in other denominations by saying they are disagreements not differences.

You could chose to look at it that way. It deliberately overstates the disagreements that have actually been tolerated within Orthodoxy though. In reality disagreement has been recognised and the Church has after a period od debate and sometimes even conflict stated one view or the other to be correct. That is not the case in protestantism at all where what we have instead is a mix of denominations which actively tolerate very wide disagreement internally with little attempt to reconcile views or ever increasing numbers of schisms with denominations that are ever shrinking to maintain what unity they can muster. Clearly neither of the protestant alternatives represents any kind of real unity, merely a pretense at it.

Of course I find it interesting how you and others want to focus on the Anglican/Church of England denomination and ignore other denominations. Why is that?

Its both the largest group of protestant believers and a solid illustration of the point at hand. Why would I use some tiny house church somewhere with 3 members all of whom manage to agree? Even if I did what would it actually show anyway?

As I said before there are other denominations that have the unity of belief and if you were to look honestly you would find them.

I'm aware that there are groupings that agree with each other for the time being, I see no evidence of agreement stretching back to pentecost though and without that the fact that a few thousand ( or even a few hundred thousand ) people can invent a set of beliefs they can all accept for the time being seems quite meaningless.

 

[TheDag]

You could chose to look at it that way. It deliberately overstates the disagreements that have actually been tolerated within Orthodoxy though. In reality disagreement has been recognised and the Church has after a period of debate and sometimes even conflict stated one view or the other to be correct. That is not the case in protestantism at all where what we have instead is a mix of denominations which actively tolerate very wide disagreement internally with little attempt to reconcile views or ever increasing numbers of schisms with denominations that are ever shrinking to maintain what unity they can muster. Clearly neither of the protestant alternatives represents any kind of real unity, merely a pretense at it.

Once again you fall back on the gray area of what is a disagreement and what isn't. Any conflict or disunity of belief you simply dismiss as a disagreement but quickly dismiss any possibility of it being a disagreement in other denominations. My experience in several different denominations is that they do try to sort out differences. One key difference is that they don't have a group at the top just make a decision and say that is what people believe. That doesn't work. Sure on your list of official beliefs it may look good but you end up with disunity because on the ground level many won't just change their views because some committee told them to. What you end up with is a fake unity.

Its both the largest group of protestant believers and a solid illustration of the point at hand. Why would I use some tiny house church somewhere with 3 members all of whom manage to agree? Even if I did what would it actually show anyway?

If you want to be silly by making suggestions like this then say so clearly and then I'll know to leave this conversation. I can assure you I was not talking about a small house church but rather a worldwide denomination.

I'm aware that there are groupings that agree with each other for the time being, I see no evidence of agreement stretching back to pentecost though and without that the fact that a few thousand ( or even a few hundred thousand ) people can invent a set of beliefs they can all accept for the time being seems quite meaningless.

The interesting thing though is that when one talks to catholics and orthodox you find plenty who disagree with the churches teachings on all kinds of matters. So where has this unity of belief got you? Maybe I could bring out that God is not the author of confusion verse that catholics and orthodox are so fond of quoting. Let's be realistic. Some of these differences have lasted for a long time and have not gone away even when a decision has been made on who is right and wrong. i have heard many catholics say that the orthodox do not go back to pentecost. So how do we know you do? Do we take your word for it or do we take the catholics word for it? Both claim to be the church that was built on Peter. On a side note Peter denied Christ which is why one has to wonder what was going on in the mind of those who said you lose salvation if you deny Christ while being persecuted.

 

[TheDag]

Many years –
[FONT=&quot]One does not have to understand principles of the cause to understand the factors of the effect. To state that what you said when it comes to “If you don't understand something I don't think it is wise to say you can see the consequences of it as you can not know if those consequences you see are only the result of what you think” is rather limiting and does not really fall under properties of reality and human observations. I do not have to understand the nuclear fusion to understand that my skin is burning – which is a consequence of said explosion. I do not have to understand God to understand that He is love and that I sinful have received mercy. Etc. So, if I may – I would suggest that you should re-inspect you opinion in this regard.[/FONT]

If you do not understand something fully you can not always be certain that the consequences you are seeing is from that. In the case of sola scripture if you do not understand it then you can't be certain that the consequences are because of that or if it is from people misusing the word of God for their own purposes. I know people who will say something is wrong based on a particular verse yet dismiss the verses before and after as not applying today. That is not the result of sola scripture but rather people picking and choosing what they want as well as ignoring the context. They are only two of the problems when people read scripture.