A conversation about unity.

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm still waiting for @2PhiloVoid to lead us down his rabbit hole.

My guess, it's all talk.

Plus, I think @public hermit has done a good job of citing the double-talk that often gets shoveled around with pretense by some Catholics: "Oh, we Catholics wouldn't say that other Christians aren't truly Christian, but our Church is HIS Church-----and theirs isn't." Of course, I fully realize that Catholics aren't the only ones saying that sort of thing, but it should be clear that I define 'unity' by acceptance of each other from the general Trinitarian recognition of the most primitive and essential truths established in the 1st century. It shouldn't require anymore than that.

I feel no compunction to accept the "fuller" definition for UNITY that the RCC has denoted and meted out over the centuries for everyone else. In fact, I'm going to assert that no one has to accept it either to have unity or by which to believe, have faith and make it into eternal life with Christ.

 

[concretecamper]

Plus, I think @public hermit has done a good job of citing the double-talk that often gets shoveled around with pretense by some Catholics: "Oh, we Catholics wouldn't say that other Christians aren't truly Christian, but our Church is HIS Church-----and theirs isn't." Of course

Truth is tough to take, I know. According to Scripture, Baptism makes one part of His Body. No Baptism, no part of His Body.

All I've heard is everyone has to compromise something. That may be ok with those outside His Church, but for us who are members of His Body, The Church, compromise isn't an option.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Brother, again this thread is your defense of Catholic teachings. I grew up a Catholic and rejected Catholic teachings. I have nothing to prove to myself. I thought that you had a genuine desire for unity but I was wrong.

The first thing I want to say is that this thread is not my defence of Catholic Teaching. read my posts I cite The references I've used. check out The original post once again you will see that it is not a defence of my view of anything. and what does it matter if you grew up a Catholic and rejected Catholic teaching that seems an irrelevance to me, why didn't you tell me what you believe now, then we could compare and contrast it with what I've been writing, you seem a lot. To play against what I am or what you perceive me to be. you don't want to deal with The topic that much is clear, I don't know why you're participating in The thread if you think it's about who I am, it's never been about that.

 

[Hentenza]

Truth is tough to take, I know. According to Scripture, Baptism makes one part of His Body. No Baptism, no part of His Body.

Baptism in my church make me part of His body. Your church doesn't have the monopoly on baptism.

All I've heard is everyone has to compromise something. That may be ok with those outside His Church, but for us who are members of His Body, The Church, compromise isn't an option.

No unity then right?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That's partly what I'm saying. I'm not saying just particular (local) congregations are human institutions; I'm saying the institutions behind those congregations are human (not completely sans divine, but nowhere near wholly divine, either). That means Catholics (and their variations), Orthodox (and their variations), Ethiopian Orthodox, Coptic, Syrian, Southern Baptist, Free Baptist, Nazarene, African Methodist Episcopal Zion, PCA and PCUSA, on and on- all of those are human institutions. They all can share in the generous grace and love of God in Jesus Christ, but none of them has the claim to primacy.

if you really believe that all of those are human institutions, maybe with a tiny touch of The divine present in them, then just give up on The church altogether. why would you want to be a part of a human institution that has only The smallest smidgen of divine truth present in it. but if you're willing to look for a church that Jesus Christ founded, a church that can be called The church of God which is The pillar and ground of truth then you need to start looking deeper than The very superficial picture you're painting.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Yes - i's ALL Christian believers.
All who confess Jesus, trust Jesus, serve Jesus and believe that he is the only way to the Father.

The church can be found where Christians gather - in coffee shops, Bible study groups, Bible college, school or university Christian unions.
It can be found at Greenbelt, Spring Harvest or New Wine (UK Christian festivals) where thousands of people from all denominations gather to worship God, read his word and pray together. It can be found in the quiet of an abbey, monastery or convent.

They are local congregations and part of the one, holy Catholic and Apostolic church.


Paul founded several churches - local congregations - at Ephesus, Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica and so on.

It's about finding what we have in common and all agree on - also, those things that are the most important.
Differing church practices are not the Christian Gospel.


The Nicean Creed was written to counter the false teaching that was going around at the time and which centred on who Jesus was. Some said that he was only human and not divine, some said that he was only divine and not human.

The question that Jesus asked his disciples - "who do you say that I am?" - is still the most important one that anyone will have to answer
Salvation is by him alone.

"Lord" is not a human title of respect. And if we believe that God raised Jesus from the dead, that necessarily means that all that Jesus claimed about himself - being one with God, able to forgive sins, entitled to use the name that God revealed to Moses, the one who came from heaven and has seen God, the only way to the Father etc, etc - is true, Romans 1:4. Why would God raise a blasphemous, deluded/sinful man from the dead? JWs etc do not believe that Jesus was God.

Accepting Jesus = accepting his teachings and all that he claimed about himself.
He said that he was one with the Father and that the Spirit is God's Spirit. He forgave sins, etc. The Jews believed he was claiming to be God, which is why they tried to stone him, John 8:58-59 and then had him crucified for blasphemy.
Jesus said that he had shared God's glory before the creation of the world, John 17:5, and had obviously been born as a human - God in the flesh; incarnation.
Jesus told his disciples that there were many mansions in his Father's house, that he was going to prepare one for them and that he would return and take them to be with him, John 14:3.
Jesus spoke of final judgement - eg Matthew 25; sheep and goats.


Jesus taught baptism and the Lord's supper. He did not teach about ordination.

All Christians accept Jesus, therefore, should accept who he was, what he did and the words he taught.
There are many different ways of putting his words into practice - e.g. what is baptism? What is worship? But what we have in common is that we accept, have received and trust in the One who said them.

What we should be doing is encouraging one another in the faith and into a deeper relationship with Jesus and not focusing on church practice.
The very words "church which Jesus founded" - which you believe to be synonymous with the Catholic church - are a sign of disunity. It suggests that any Christian who goes to "another church" is in one that is not founded/recognised by Jesus. The "we're right, you're not" attitude is how wars start.

I am sorry. your reply contains many words and I've glanced over them and read a few in detail, and there really isn't anything here that I want to reply to.

 

[concretecamper]

No unity then right?

Those who have the Truth don't compromise.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Truth is tough to take, I know. According to Scripture, Baptism makes one part of His Body. No Baptism, no part of His Body.

All I've heard is everyone has to compromise something. That may be ok with those outside His Church, but for us who are members of His Body, The Church, compromise isn't an option.

I honestly begin to think that our interlocutors do not understand what is at stake, I think that they do not realise that you either have The church that Christ founded, or you have a human institution whose contents, beliefs, practises are entirely up to The people there and they can determine them by democratic vote. in such a church The truth doesn't matter. It's opinion that counts. everybody's got an opinion. and that kind of makes opinions a little bit worthless

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Baptism in my church make me part of His body. Your church doesn't have the monopoly on baptism.

No unity then right?

isn't it a blessing that baptism is present in your church too God be praised.

 

[concretecamper]

I honestly begin to think that our interlocutors do not understand what is at stake, I think that they do not realise that you either have The church that Christ founded, or you have a human institution whose contents, beliefs, practises are entirely up to The people there and they can determine them by democratic vote. in such a church The truth doesn't matter. It's opinion that counts. everybody's got an opinion. and that kind of makes opinions a little bit worthless

Their willingness to compromise in pursuit of unity shows us all how shallow their beliefs are.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Those who have the Truth don't compromise.

it's not that those who have The truth don't compromise, given half a chance, I think many Catholics would happily compromise The real truth is The The truth itself cannot compromise it's either true or it is not true. Jesus Christ founded one Church.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Their willingness to compromise in pursuit of unity shows us all how shallow their beliefs are.

I do not know if their beliefs are shallow I am still waiting for some of them to explain what they are they've been so busy telling me that I'm wrong, but not explaining why. then it's left me wondering if they've got any specific beliefs that they are willing to defend or not.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Truth is tough to take, I know.

Truth is only as tough to take as your truth claim (or other general Speech Act) engages and explains reality or an aspect of reality as it actually is.

Moreover, I don't see much in the way within the Bible indicating clearly and distinctly that any one method or form of truth and justification is demanded or preferred over any other. Only that we need to see that Jesus Christ is the Supreme "statement" God has made and is making to all of humanity.

So, you can can the Jesuit style hubris about "truth" being tough to take. That doesn't play on this soccer field.

According to Scripture, Baptism makes one part of His Body. No Baptism, no part of His Body.

Right. I don't think anyone here has disagreed about Baptism. The only thing I'd disagree with is that Baptism into Christ's Body doesn't have to take place solely within the confines of a Roman Catholic baptismal font. It can be done in ANY Trinitarian Church, generally speaking. So, your point is a non-point here with me.

All I've heard is everyone has to compromise something. That may be ok with those outside His Church, but for us who are members of His Body, The Church, compromise isn't an option.

I don't perceive I'm compromising. The more accurate term applied to my case would be "disavowing" what I view are extraneous requirements (that is, specifically submitting myself to the RCC magisterium). But hey, I'm not knocking you if you want to identify with the RCC; I won't count that against you as being some sort of compromise like some other people on CF, or whomever, might do.

See? Me and my fiery bike are charitable like that. Besides, I enjoy listening to Michael Knowles like many other people.

 

[public hermit]

if you really believe that all of those are human institutions, maybe with a tiny touch of The divine present in them, then just give up on The church altogether.

I didn't say, "tiny touch." I said something along the lines of *abide in the grace and love of God in Christ*. That's more robust, I think. You know, at least give me what I'm saying.

Your encouragement for me to "give up on the church altogether" seems extreme. But maybe I would see it that way if I were in your shoes. I don't know. At any rate, don't worry about me giving up on Christ. Since Christ is the head, there is enough body to go around. There's no need to be afraid or give up.

The church that Christ founded, or you have a human institution whose contents, beliefs, practises are entirely up to The people there and they can determine them by democratic vote.

That's true in some churches but not all. If you think church polity should be the ground of our unity, then it won't happen. I think we've come to an impasse. Oh well, no such unity today, I guess. No worries. Although I doubt God is impressed with our inability to get it together, God is greater than the sum of our parts.

 

[ARBITER01]

It's interesting watching threads like this validate the Reformation.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I do not know if their beliefs are shallow I am still waiting for some of them to explain what they are they've been so busy telling me that I'm wrong, but not explaining why. then it's left me wondering if they've got any specific beliefs that they are willing to defend or not.

The only thing I'm doing here, brother Xeno, is discussing (and debating) what Christian UNITY is contingent upon. I'm not here to present a clearing-house sweep away of all things Catholic in order to make room for my own Christian sources. Bashing or supporting Catholics isn't what this discussion should be about; it is about delving into the inner semantic layers of accumulated terms and assertions (and/or traditions) that comprise what "should be" the common understanding of Christian UNITY.

 

[public hermit]

Their willingness to compromise in pursuit of unity shows us all how shallow their beliefs are.

It's quite the opposite. If our beliefs were shallow, it would be no issue for all of us to simply join your tradition since it wouldn't really matter. The reason there is so much division is because most all particular churches have deeply held beliefs and practices that are not given up easily. So, your assertion is blatantly off the mark. That's okay. Happily, our unity does not need to entail an agreement on all of those differences. It needs only entail the things upon which we agree. And, as I stated in a post above, that is actually quite a lot! Yay!!

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It's interesting watching threads like this validate the Reformation.

So exactly how does it validate the reformation, I am presuming that by reformation you mean the Protestant rebellion. The only thing I can see it as establishing or validating is that everybody's got an opinion. and that's probably why there are many thousands of independent Protestant churches, and a few hundred Protestant denominations and none of you agree about virtually any of the minutiae of Christian Church governance, sacraments, and "distinctives" as people say, the doctrines that distinguish each of your denominations from all of the others. personally, I wouldn't be very proud of validating that.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The only thing I'm doing here, brother Xeno, is discussing (and debating) what Christian UNITY is contingent upon. I'm not here to present a clearing-house sweep away of all things Catholic in order to make room for my own Christian sources. Bashing or supporting Catholics isn't what this discussion should be about; it is about delving into the inner semantic layers of accumulated terms and assertions (and/or traditions) that comprise what "should be" the common understanding of Christian UNITY.

it's obvious Christian unity is contingent upon agreement about The sacraments, church governance, and doctrine. The practises that we have are determined by those things. and you can't have Unity, if you don't have The same views about doctrines and sacraments and The way to govern. The church. whenever you disagree about 1. more of those things. You will not have one church. You'll have several. Protestants have several churches they don't agree, they disagree about governance, sacraments, and doctrine - Some disagree about one of those things, some disagree about two, and some disagree about all three. that's The world of Protestant denominations for you.

 

[public hermit]

I am presuming that by reformation you mean The Protestant rebellion

Oh my, here we go. I have an idea, let's fight a theological war that ended over 500 years ago. Let's not go forward, that's foolish. Let's just retrace our steps and become even more irrelevant.