Who do you say that I am?

[gtsecc]

Who do you say that I am?

Although all had been reveled to them, no one, besides maybe Peter, got it until after the crucifixion. The Church community, in the light of the crucifixion, living the Eucharistic life came up with all the things we take for granted like the Trinity and the nature of Christ as fully man and fully God. No one had a choice as to what to believe, nor was there a vote. It sounds harsh. Those who disagreed, had to persuade people to their point of view, as Athanasius did, or leave the Church! So, you say, if someone disagreed, the church just kicked them out, seems like a pretty self fulfilling way to get one voice! Yes, but, after a split one side died, and one side remained. All those who disagreed with the Church either died out, or returned to the Church. This is our history. The one exception is Calcedon, but we also see now that both sides were saying the same thing, and progress towards recommunion is happening. So this one unified group of people receiving communion with Bishops in Apostolic succession listenign for the one unified voice of the church is how the church came to its great understandings ( The Trinity, the Creed, the Bible). How can we change the criterion by which God has revealed Truth?

 

[ebia]

Have we "change[d] the criteria", or are we just in the middle of resolving a disagreement. The early church didn't instantly resolve its disgreements - each took time. We are in a state of resolving certain issues, as the church will always be in the state of resolving some issue or other. I'm not at all sure there is a substantial difference between now and then, except in perspective.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

How can we change the criterion by which God has revealed Truth?

I don't think that God wanted truth to be so exclusively owned.

 

[No Swansong]

Yes, but, after a split one side died, and one side remained. All those who disagreed with the Church either died out, or returned to the Church.

So who is returning? I see no reason to believe that the Copts, the Romans, or the Eastern Christians have died out nor are they reunifying.


Nor do I see the "Protestants" dieing out, as a matter of fact although they are smaller in number than the Roman Catholic Church the Evangelicals specifically are growing.

 

[wannabeadesigirl]

The church will never be perfected until Christ comes back. It's unfortunate that we have so many denominations, and for so many reasons. However, each part has an important part to play in the Body of Christ, which is the whole of Christianity, and perhaps more than just Christianity.
And I agree with Karen God cannot be exclusively owned by one group of people. He never meant for one people to keep him as their own.

 

[gtsecc]

I must be terrible at explaining things, because it is clear no one here really even understands the position I am putting forth. The point is not that the Holy Spirit does not act in other places, but rather that we cannot KNOW which voice is the Holy Spirit when there are so many conflicting confessions. What we can know is that beliefs held by all Christians before the schism, are the voice of the Holy Spirit - for example the Creeds, the Trinity, our Christology and related Heresies.
How does the Bible fall short? Well, we cannot get the 3 fold ordained ministry directly out of it - that is a confession of the undivided church, and a confession held today by Copts, Anglicans (and continuing Anglicans), Roman Catholics, and the Eastern Orthodox. That is why we say the other groups (protestants) are wrong. Not because they confess something contrary to the bible, but because they hold beliefs contrary to the undivided church.

 

[No Swansong]

The problem is that you believe that the Church actually ever spoke with one voice. To me, this is a fallacy. I do not see that the Church ever spoke with one voice.

As for the trifold ministry it is convenient but it is not necessary.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Who do you say that I am?

Although all had been reveled to them, no one, besides maybe Peter, got it until after the crucifixion. The Church community, in the light of the crucifixion, living the Eucharistic life came up with all the things we take for granted like the Trinity and the nature of Christ as fully man and fully God. No one had a choice as to what to believe, nor was there a vote. It sounds harsh. Those who disagreed, had to persuade people to their point of view, as Athanasius did, or leave the Church! So, you say, if someone disagreed, the church just kicked them out, seems like a pretty self fulfilling way to get one voice! Yes, but, after a split one side died, and one side remained. All those who disagreed with the Church either died out, or returned to the Church. This is our history. The one exception is Calcedon, but we also see now that both sides were saying the same thing, and progress towards recommunion is happening. So this one unified group of people receiving communion with Bishops in Apostolic succession listenign for the one unified voice of the church is how the church came to its great understandings ( The Trinity, the Creed, the Bible). How can we change the criterion by which God has revealed Truth?

Glenn, I understand what you're saying, and I think it makes sense to a large degree. However, if what you say is accurate, you still have to account for the Great Schism, and why you now believe in a Church of three parts which all teach different things. Why would God leave a definitive teaching authority for 1,000 years and then let it be dissolved or muddled for at least an additional 1,000 without warning anyone or declaring it?

I think that, logically, when one declares that the Church has teaching authority as a unit in the way that you describe, and that it is an essential element of the Church against which Jesus said the gates of hell could not prevail, that there is no way it can be limited to 1,000 years. It must continue. And that's I think the line of reasoning many Anglo-Catholics often wind up following to Rome. That's not a criticism of Anglo-Catholicism by any means, I just think some of the basic assumptions that are made by the most hard core Anglo-Catholics naturally lead to Roman Catholicism. There's no real logical explanation for a divine teaching authority for 1,000 years and then nothing that's offered -- it makes more sense to say it never existed or that it continues to exist to this day.

 

[gtsecc]

Glenn, I understand what you're saying, and I think it makes sense to a large degree. However, if what you say is accurate, you still have to account for the Great Schism, and why you now believe in a Church of three parts which all teach different things. Why would God leave a definitive teaching authority for 1,000 years and then let it be dissolved or muddled for at least an additional 1,000 without warning anyone or declaring it?

I think that, logically, when one declares that the Church has teaching authority as a unit in the way that you describe, and that it is an essential element of the Church against which Jesus said the gates of hell could not prevail, that there is no way it can be limited to 1,000 years. It must continue. And that's I think the line of reasoning many Anglo-Catholics often wind up following to Rome. That's not a criticism of Anglo-Catholicism by any means, I just think some of the basic assumptions that are made by the most hard core Anglo-Catholics naturally lead to Roman Catholicism. There's no real logical explanation for a divine teaching authority for 1,000 years and then nothing that's offered -- it makes more sense to say it never existed or that it continues to exist to this day.

1,000 years?
The Orthodox believe they are it, and have been around 2,000 years.
Same with Rome.
Same with the Coptics.
Same with Anglicans who hold to this same sense of the Church.
The problem is how can a group do something fundamentally different, and claim to be the same group?

 

[Fish and Bread]

1,000 years?
The Orthodox believe they are it, and have been around 2,000 years.
Same with Rome.
Same with the Coptics.
Same with Anglicans who hold to this same sense of the Church.
The problem is how can a group do something fundamentally different, and claim to be the same group?

I don't think you understand the point I am trying to make. If "the Church" has authority and existed as one organizational force for 1,000 years that exercised that authority, you have to account for while things are different today using theological reasoning (Not history or happenstance). If you can't, then logically you must either say the Church continues to exist in the same way with the same authority, meaning either Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy is the "the Church" and the others all broke off, or that there is no Church at all in the sense you describe and never was. The Anglo-Catholic branch theology doesn't follow logically because it on the one hand presupposes that God intended an organizationally unified Church with teaching authority, and on the other hand decided to randomly allow it to be abolished around the 11th century in favor of various organizations with no teaching authority in and of themselves, and with no explanation.

 

[higgs2]

Where have you been, gtsecc?