A troubling confession - Extra ecclesiam nulla salus!

[trophy33]

True, and yet garages still have their practical benefits or role to play. In the case of a visible church unity of beliefs can be maintained only in that case, under one recognized "garage".

Its useful (not as much as before internet, though), but not necessary. Sometimes, it may even be harmful, if somebody is involved too much in one garage (being fed just one view).

 

[fhansen]

Yeah but the thing is the garage is only recognized by the garage.

Yes, just as die-hard Arians refused to recognize the garage as the garage

 

[Strong in Him]

Does all that mean that you do not believe that the church is the body of Christ?

No, of course it doesn't; it means what it says.
If someone confesses their sin, comes to Jesus, trusts Jesus, accepts Jesus and receives Jesus, they have eternal life, John 1:12, John 3:16, John 3:36, John 5:39-40. They are born again and saved.
That person may have received Jesus because someone else spoke to them about him, and they may receive an invitation to go to church. But church doesn't complete their salvation. If they didn't get to a church for a couple of weeks, or became ill and then died before they could join one - they would still be God's child and have eternal life. Even if they did get to a church straight away, they would be going as a saved person - a follower of Jesus.

 

[fhansen]

Its useful (not as much as before internet, though), but not necessary. Sometimes, it may even be harmful, if somebody is involved too much in one garage (being fed just one view).

And yet isn't that a bit like saying that disunity or cafeteria -Christianity is somehow better? Either way, everyone draws a line in the sand somewhere regarding what they consider to be essential beliefs and what are not.

 

[ozso]

Yes, just as die-hard Arians refused to recognize the garage as the garage

Refusal to believe in the hypostatic union has nothing to do with not recognizing the RCC as the one and only true church or all of RC Mariology dogma. They're separate issues being conflated together.

 

[ozso]

Yeah, we said that before.

Well it seemed like you weren't getting it.

 

[fhansen]

Refusal to believe in the hypostatic union has nothing to do with not recognizing the RCC as the one and only true church or all of RC Mariology dogma. They're separate issues being conflated together.

Whether or not it exists in the RCC or the EO or some other church, failing to recognize a central authority, teaching a unified body of beliefs, guarantees disunity, a disunity that Christ would have provided a means to resist.

 

[trophy33]

And yet isn't that a bit like saying that disunity or cafeteria -Christianity is somehow better?

In some contexts, it can certainly be better than unity in wrongdoing or than isolated pieces of truth/closed-mindedness.

 

[fhansen]

In some contexts, it can certainly be better than unity in wrongdoing or than isolated pieces of truth.

Yes, I can't believe that Jesus would want isolated pieces of truth taught, while leaving out the rest of the puzzle. But there's certainly a lot of that going around everywhere. At the end of the day it's up to each of us, with the guidance of the HS, to determine the whole puzzle to the best of our ability, and where/how that's being taught most correctly.

 

[ozso]

Whether or not it exists in the RCC or the EO or some other church, failing to recognize a central authority, teaching a unified body of beliefs, guarantees disunity, a disunity that Christ would have provided a means to resist.

There's no disunity among Christians when it comes to Christ.

 

[ozso]

Yes, I can't believe that Jesus would want isolated pieces of truth taught, while leaving out the rest of the puzzle. But there's certainly a lot of that going around everywhere. At the end of the day it's up to each of us, with the guidance of the HS, to determine the whole puzzle to the best of our ability, and where/how that's being taught most correctly.

What puzzle?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

There's no disunity among Christians when it comes to Christ.

Are you sure?

Did Jesus soul sleep between death and the resurrection? Give your answer and then as a Seventh Day Adventist for their answer.

Was Nestor right when he refused to call Mary the mother of God? If you do not think that's a Christological question then you may be a nestorian too.

Is Jesus still a human being now that he is in heaven? Will he remain human forever?

Was Jesus speaking normally or metaphorically when he said "this is my body" and "this is my blood of the new covenant"?

Do you still think that there is no disunity between Christians when it comes to Christ?

 

[Fervent]

Are you sure?

Did Jesus soul sleep between death and the resurrection? Give your answer and then as a Seventh Day Adventist for their answer.

Was Nestor right when he refused to call Mary the mother of God? If you do not think that's a Christological question then you may be a nestorian too.

Is Jesus still a human being now that he is in heaven? Will he remain human forever?

Was Jesus speaking normally or metaphorically when he said "this is my body" and "this is my blood of the new covenant"?

Do you still think that there is no disunity between Christians when it comes to Christ?

The Nestorian heresy wasn't about him refusing to call Mary the mother of God, it was about him refusing to say that God the Son suffered according to his human nature in the crucifixion. How many of those you accuse of nestorianism for refusing Mary an honorific would make that claim?

 

[ozso]

Are you sure?

Did Jesus soul sleep between death and the resurrection? Give your answer and then as a Seventh Day Adventist for their answer.

Was Nestor right when he refused to call Mary the mother of God? If you do not think that's a Christological question then you may be a nestorian too.

Is Jesus still a human being now that he is in heaven? Will he remain human forever?

Was Jesus speaking normally or metaphorically when he said "this is my body" and "this is my blood of the new covenant"?

Do you still think that there is no disunity between Christians when it comes to Christ?

If that's the worst you can come up with, then yes I'm sure.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

If that's the worst you can come up with, then yes I'm sure.

You didn't answer any of the questions.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The Nestorian heresy wasn't about him refusing to call Mary the mother of God, it was about him refusing to say that God the Son suffered according to his human nature in the crucifixion. How many of those you accuse of nestorianism for refusing Mary an honorific would make that claim?

Nestorianism is a Christian doctrine that originated in the 5th century and was promoted by Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople 1. The doctrine asserts that there were two separate persons, one human and one divine, in the incarnate Christ 1. Nestorianism was condemned as a heresy by the ecumenical councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451) 2. The Oxford English Dictionary defines Nestorianism as “The doctrine of Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople (appointed in 428), by which Christ is asserted to have had distinct human and divine persons” 1.
1: OxfordDictionaries 2: Britannica

People who refuse to acknowledge that Mary is the mother of God do so through asserting that Mary is mother only of the human flesh of Christ, thus they divide the person of Christ into two separate things.

 

[ozso]

You didn't answer any of the questions.

You asked me if I was sure, listed a few things, and then asked me if I still had the same opinion.

 

[ozso]

Nestorianism is a Christian doctrine that originated in the 5th century and was promoted by Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople 1. The doctrine asserts that there were two separate persons, one human and one divine, in the incarnate Christ 1. Nestorianism was condemned as a heresy by the ecumenical councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451) 2. The Oxford English Dictionary defines Nestorianism as “The doctrine of Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople (appointed in 428), by which Christ is asserted to have had distinct human and divine persons” 1.
1: OxfordDictionaries 2: Britannica

People who refuse to acknowledge that Mary is the mother of God do so through asserting that Mary is mother only of the human flesh of Christ, thus they divide the person of Christ into two separate tings.

When a Asian woman gives birth to a baby whose father is African, who gave the baby his African atibutes?

 

[trophy33]

Nestorianism is a Christian doctrine that originated in the 5th century and was promoted by Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople 1. The doctrine asserts that there were two separate persons, one human and one divine, in the incarnate Christ 1. Nestorianism was condemned as a heresy by the ecumenical councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451) 2. The Oxford English Dictionary defines Nestorianism as “The doctrine of Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople (appointed in 428), by which Christ is asserted to have had distinct human and divine persons” 1.
1: OxfordDictionaries 2: Britannica

People who refuse to acknowledge that Mary is the mother of God do so through asserting that Mary is mother only of the human flesh of Christ, thus they divide the person of Christ into two separate tings.

Two separate "tings" (sic)?

Your quote talks about two separate persons. Body is not a person of its own (though it has its own collective "will" and goals, in mitochondria and microbiome).

 

[Strong in Him]

People who refuse to acknowledge that Mary is the mother of God do so through asserting that Mary is mother only of the human flesh of Christ, thus they divide the person of Christ into two separate tings.

I disagree.

For me, and I think for most people, a mother is someone who gives birth to a baby and, for most of its life, is bigger than the child - has more authority, knowledge, is responsible for training the child etc.
Obviously Mary gave birth to Jesus. Jesus, as a human being, had a human mother.
But God needs no mother. Nobody made, or gave birth to, God - James says that God chose to give birth to US, James 1:18. God created and gave life to all things. Nobody brought God into being; no one nurtured him, taught him how to do things etc. So how can God have a mother? That implies there is someone greater than God. If he needed a mother, he is not all powerful.

Jesus was 100% man and 100% God.
Jesus, the human, had a mother who gave birth to him, brought him up, taught him to walk etc. Jesus' divine nature needed no mother - he always prayed, talked to and was guided by his Father. Both natures existed fully in Jesus.
How can that be? Who knows? But that's how it is.