Abused texts of Scripture: What is your example?

[Clare73]

That text has nothing to do with how to treat the poor or the hungry.

And in the context of how we are to obey the commandment to love our neighbor it doesn't matter.

Nor do we know who is who.

 

[The Liturgist]

There's a promise in the scripture that the Holy Spirit will teach you all things John 14:26, we don't need "the church" meaning the RCC to tell one what to believe or think, which laws can be changed on their authority over God’s.

Ad hominem, since the Council of Ephesus was primarily a Greek Orthodox dispute between the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch and the Patriarch of Constantinople, and furthermore @MarkRohfrietsch is a Lutheran, and his doctrine does not derive from that of the RCC.

Really, the Roman Catholic Church has nothing to do with the core issue other than having, like the Lutherans, taken the correct theological approach to the issue, namely, one which agrees with that of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox contra Nestorius.

Nestorius was as bad as any Roman Pope: he attempted to suppress the historic veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Theotokos, and used violence to do so.

One of my main objections to the book The Great Controversy is its consistent attack on Roman Popes, while ignoring other heretics such as Nestorius or Paul of Samosata, who were as bad or worse - indeed even the worst Roman Pope is better than Paul of Samosata, a third century bishop who embezzled from the church while being the first to deny the deity of Christ our True God.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Many Christians replaced what is necessary with unnecessary things.

Could you please list the "unnecessary things." I am most interested.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Ad hominem, since the Council of Ephesus was primarily a Greek Orthodox dispute between the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch and the Patriarch of Constantinople, and furthermore @MarkRohfrietsch is a Lutheran, and his doctrine does not derive from that of the RCC.

Really, the Roman Catholic Church has nothing to do with the core issue other than having, like the Lutherans, taken the correct theological approach to the issue, namely, one which agrees with that of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox contra Nestorius.

Nestorius was as bad as any Roman Pope: he attempted to suppress the historic veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Theotokos, and used violence to do so.

One of my main objections to the book The Great Controversy is its consistent attack on Roman Popes, while ignoring other heretics such as Nestorius or Paul of Samosata, who were as bad or worse - indeed even the worst Roman Pope is better than Paul of Samosata, a third century bishop who embezzled from the church while being the first to deny the deity of Christ our True God.

I was replying to concretecamper which according to his profile is Catholic. He is the one who stated the Holy Spirit is not given to individuals but only to “the church” and since he is Catholic I am assuming that is the church he is referring to. This is not just a sad teaching, but a dangerous one.

If one canot hear the Holy Spirit calling us out of rebellion Heb 3:7-8 convicting us of our sins John 16:8 than all one will do is cover their sins- which according to scripture is a dangerous place to be Pro 28:13 Heb 10:26-30

The Holy Spirit is given to….

1. Those who ask
Luke 11:13 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”

2.Teach us all Truth
John 16:13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.

3. Through repentance and baptism
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the [a]remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

4:To help obey God’s commandments through our love to Him
John 14:15 “If you love Me, keep My commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another [e]Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

5. Those who obey Him
Acts 5:32 And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.”

6. When we are led by the Spirit we become sons of God
Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.


There is no scripture that says these promises are only to the Catholic church. I pray people will wake up and read the Bible’s for themselves and live by God’s Word, which is what we are called to live by Mat 4:4

 

[The Liturgist]

I was replying to @concretecamper which according to his profile is Catholic. He is the one who stated the Holy Spirit is not given to individuals but only to “the church” and since he is Catholic I am assuming that is the church he is referring to. This is not just a sad teaching, but a dangerous one.

FYI, your reply is literally addressed to a post made by my friend @MarkRohfrietsch . So perhaps you replied to him by mistake?

As far as I am aware the RCC and the Lutherans share the Orthodox doctrine that we receive the Holy Spirit during the process of being grafted into the Church through baptism or chrismation/confirmation or other means. But all three churches would agree that this does not deprive the church, however it is defined ecclesiologically, from its teaching authority.

On the contrary, to argue as much appears to contradict 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Galatians 1:8-9, and other texts concerning the authority of the church, and of Holy Tradition. And we can assert with confidence that Mark 7:13 is referring to the man-made traditions of the Pharisees, which are counter-intuitive and some of which have become controversial, since the alternative reading proposed by other Adventist members contradicts the writings of the Holy Apostle Paul in three specific places.* This is why in response to the interesting OP of @Ain't Zwinglian I flagged this verse as one subject to abuse, since it represents an eisegetical misreading (what some people call “proof-texting”, although I dislike the term, as I regard it as misleading, but essentially eisegesis is reading Scriptural passages in isolation without regard to the whole Scripture), that is self serving, and the problem with this approach is inconsistency.

Any interpretation can be evaluated, tested against Scripture, by its consistency with Scripture as a whole, or exegesis, which takes us to another verse which I think @Ain't Zwinglian might agree is much abused, Acts 17:11. If we interpret this in context with 1 John 4:1, can be regarded as a means for testing whether or not something is of the Holy Spirit according to its accuracy in terms of consistency with all of Scripture, and with the Gospel as historically taught in Christianity, and also any predictions or historical statements which are made, since God the Holy Spirit does not make mistakes (although we can misinterpret God.**

Additionally, it does not change the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary did give birth to God - this is the definition of the Incarnation. God, in the person of the Logos, became man, that is to say, became incarnate, and thus the incarnation can be defined as God being born into a human body, and thus becoming a part of His own creation through the cooperation of the three persons of the Holy Trinity. In this manner, the Only Begotten Son and Word of God put on our human nature and redeemed and glorified it.

* Actually, regarding St. Paul, I would say that Adventist doctrines clash with a number of the Pauline epistles - practically all of the discussion on the role of the Law in the Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, and also much of Romans, which outlines Christian morality as distinct from the system of the Torah.

** It is for this reason I personally cannot accept the prophecies regarded by many Adventists as infallible, by Ellen G White, nor the view that she is the Spirit of Prophecy, because of the inconsistency of some of her statements with known facts about ecclesiastical history, or the teachings of the early Church, the lack of an explanation as to how a Great Apostasy having occurred immediately after the death of the Apostles would not contradict Matthew 16:18, and other problems with the Pauline verses cited above. There is a hermeneutical inconsistency. Inconsistency is the primary means by which, in a field of science, such as theology, which deals with the data of revelation, to quote Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, memory eternal, we can evaluate the validity of a hypothetical interpretation. Theories rise and fall based on their ability to consistently harmonize with existing facts. But also, in the case of the Church, there is no need for new doctrine or new revelations, as far as the Orthodox are concerned. I don’t know what the Lutheran view is on this point, but we disagree with the Roman Catholic and SDA view that revelations continue - we believe that the Gospel was once delivered to the Apostles, and the only issues since that time have involved its defense against various erroneous interpretations which became widespread, such as Nestorianism.

@Ain't Zwinglian @MarkRohfrietsch what is the Confessional Lutheran view of “progressive revelation” or “continuing revelation”?

 

[The Liturgist]

This takes us to another set of verses, a pericope really, that I feel has been much abused by a small subset of those who claim to be the most interested in the Holy Spirit, namely the Longer Ending of Mark (Mark 16:10-16).

Now, this has been abused by a minority of Pentecostal churches in two respects, one of which is eisegetical, and the other of which deals with context and responsibility. But first, it must be stressed that these are minority positions among Pentecostals. Now I disagree with the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements on several levels, but I must give them credit where credit is due, and there are some Pentecostals who I have even liked. Indeed a relative of mine is a retired Pentecostal pastor and a dear man. So it must be made clear I am not referring to all Pentecostals, but rather to two specific subsets, one of which, the Oneness Pentecostals, are so heterodox as to not be regarded as Christian according to the CF.com Statement of Faith, since they reject the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity in favor of modalism.

Now before we even move forward, it must be acknowledged that the veracity of this pericope has been disputed. The oldest manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark do not contain the Longer Ending. However, since it is in the Peshitta, and the Vulgate, and the Byzantine Majority Text, and thus the Textus Receptus, I myself regard it as valid and as part of the canon of Ascension narratives. But this point nonetheless must be raised - this text is not universally accepted by everyone but is rather of questioned authenticity, but most people accept it, so we shall proceed from that point.

The two abuses of this text are as follows:

1. Eisegetically, it is read as an indication that we should baptize only in the name of Jesus Christ, which contradicts Matthew 28:19, which is the basis for the baptismal formula used by all churches since the first century. Now, it is considered by many to be possible that some initial baptisms were done in the name of Jesus Christ, but on the basis of Matthew 28:19, given the importance of the Trinitarian position, and the abuse of texts like this one by non-Trinitarian cults, the Oneness Pentecostals in particular, who subscribe to Modalism, practiced in antiquity by the heretics known as Sabellians, demonstrates the potential for misuse if it is read in isolation, out of context with Matthew. Also, furthermore, the heterodox eisegesis of the Longer Ending of Mark and other verses regarding baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is illogical, since if one baptizes in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, that is the same as baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ, since Jesus Christ is God the Son, and all three persons of the Holy Trinity are coessential, coequal and coeternal, with Jesus Christ being that person who became man for our salvation.

2. The second abuse is contextual and involves behavioral and pastoral responsibility, by the “Snake Handling Pentecostals” in certain parts of the US and elsewhere, for example, in Appalachia. These people subject themselves to a grave and unnecessary risk on the basis of a hyper-literal interpretation of a text which appears to be addressed to the specific context of the Apostles and subsequent Christian missionaries spreading the Gospel, as opposed to merely engaging in a Sunday liturgy. Most Christians agree that venemous snakes and other forms of potential self-harm have no place in the Christian worship experience. And people are harmed in Snake Handling churches. I feel that much work is needed to educate people in the isolated areas where these Snake Handling churches exist, to try to make people aware that there are very good reasons for believing that it was not the intent of St. Mark the Evangelist, that ordinary Christians should endanger themselves by intentionally handling venomous snakes, or walking on scorpions, or doing such things that could be regarded as ill-advised.

I would add, I really feel we should pray for children who are taken to such heterodox congregations, since they are potentially much more at risk from the venom than a full-grown adult, and furthermore lack the faculties to discern the added danger that they find themselves in.

 

[The Liturgist]

There is no scripture that says these promises are only to the Catholic church.

Well, actually, there is, but the definition of the Catholic Church is subject to debate, this being a major issue separating denominations. Catholicity is a question of ecclesiology. For example, @MarkRohfrietsch and @Ain't Zwinglian and @ViaCrucis are Lutherans - Evangelical Catholics of the Augsburg confessions. Another friend of mine, @Shane R , is an Evangelical Catholic. When I was only Congregationalist, I was a Reformed Catholic. And now, as an Orthodox Christian, I am an Orthodox Catholic. And then there are the Roman Catholics. Different Christians define Catholicity differently according to their ecclesiology. For example, Congregationalism is built around the Local Church ecclesiology, others subscribe to an ecclesiology of Apostolic Succession, either according to Augustinian models or those of St. Cyprian of Carthage in the Eastern Orthodox Church (in which Apostolic Succession does not progress through heterodox bishops). Still others, particularly Evangelical Protestants, adhere to the Invisible Church ecclesiology. So when you say the Catholic Church, or read the term, you have to be careful to differentiate between the Roman Church, which Roman Catholics do believe is the Catholic Church per se, vs. alternative definitions of Catholicity. It is for this reason that some people translate (or one might say transpose) the word Catholic in the Nicene Creed and the Apostle’s Creed with “Universal”, although this is not an entirely literal translation - literally, the word Catholic means “According to the Whole.”

The fourth century monk St. Vincent of Lerins is reknowned for his maxim on Catholicity "Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all."

This implies that Catholicity must, by definition, not merely refer to all believers in Christianity, but also must encompass the fullness of the Gospel as taught by the Apostles. There is a Pentecostal church in Korea that is famous for being the largest congregation in the world, the Yoido Full-Gospel Church. It seems to me that “Full-Gopsel” could be an interpretation of the word Catholic.

At any rate, I suspect the misunderstanding you may have had with my dear friend @concretecamper is a misunderstanding that is the result of adhering to different ecclesiological models. So when he says Catholic, he is referring to the Roman Catholic Church on the basis of ecclesiology, however, the same texts that support that interpretation also apply to other models of Catholicity, with regards to the Holy Spirit.

Insofar as all Christians are grafted onto the Body of Christ, which is the Church, according to 1 Corinthians, we can assert that the Holy Spirit is something received in the sense of indwelling by those who are members of the Church, however you define it. Universal, the Roman church, the Orthodox church, or some other model - it doesn’t matter. According to the whole implies, at the risk of sounding tautological, universal applicability and universal inclusion in the context of the faithful. At the same time it must be acknowledged that conversion is also to a great extent the work of the Holy Spirit, to convict infidels of their sin and move them to repent, as happened to Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus, which resulted in him being born again through baptism as the Holy Apostle Paul, going from being a persecutor of Christians to one of the Holy Apostles, and one particularly important for his role in spreading Christianity among the gentiles.*

*He was not alone in this: St. Thomas did similar work in the East, spreading Christianity as far as Kerala, in India, where he was martyred by an enraged Maharaja - this is because he did not limit his efforts to converting the many Jews who had settled along the overland trade route to India and in India itself (Edessa, Nineveh, Seleucia-Cstesiphon, the successor city to Babylon and the precursor city of Baghdad, the city having been relocated a few times in history due to the movement of the Tigris river causing it to become uninhabitable, which is why it has left such remarkable archaeological evidence), but also converted gentiles). Other apostles also received the crown of martyrdom spreading the faith to the gentiles, including St. Andrew the First Called and St. Bartholomew.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Well, actually, there is, but the definition of the Catholic Church is subject to debate, this being a major issue separating denominations. Catholicity is a question of ecclesiology. For example, @MarkRohfrietsch and @Ain't Zwinglian and @ViaCrucis are Lutherans - Evangelical Catholics of the Augsburg confessions. Another friend of mine, @Shane R , is an Evangelical Catholic. When I was only Congregationalist, I was a Reformed Catholic. And now, as an Orthodox Christian, I am an Orthodox Catholic. And then there are the Roman Catholics. Different Christians define Catholicity differently according to their ecclesiology. For example, Congregationalism is built around the Local Church ecclesiology, others subscribe to an ecclesiology of Apostolic Succession, either according to Augustinian models or those of St. Cyprian of Carthage in the Eastern Orthodox Church (in which Apostolic Succession does not progress through heterodox bishops). Still others, particularly Evangelical Protestants, adhere to the Invisible Church ecclesiology. So when you say the Catholic Church, or read the term, you have to be careful to differentiate between the Roman Church, which Roman Catholics do believe is the Catholic Church per se, vs. alternative definitions of Catholicity. It is for this reason that some people translate (or one might say transpose) the word Catholic in the Nicene Creed and the Apostle’s Creed with “Universal”, although this is not an entirely literal translation - literally, the word Catholic means “According to the Whole.”

The fourth century monk St. Vincent of Lerins is reknowned for his maxim on Catholicity "Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all."

This implies that Catholicity must, by definition, not merely refer to all believers in Christianity, but also must encompass the fullness of the Gospel as taught by the Apostles. There is a Pentecostal church in Korea that is famous for being the largest congregation in the world, the Yoido Full-Gospel Church. It seems to me that “Full-Gopsel” could be an interpretation of the word Catholic.

At any rate, I suspect the misunderstanding you may have had with my dear friend @concretecamper is a misunderstanding that is the result of adhering to different ecclesiological models. So when he says Catholic, he is referring to the Roman Catholic Church on the basis of ecclesiology, however, the same texts that support that interpretation also apply to other models of Catholicity, with regards to the Holy Spirit.

Insofar as all Christians are grafted onto the Body of Christ, which is the Church, according to 1 Corinthians, we can assert that the Holy Spirit is something received in the sense of indwelling by those who are members of the Church, however you define it. Universal, the Roman church, the Orthodox church, or some other model - it doesn’t matter. According to the whole implies, at the risk of sounding tautological, universal applicability and universal inclusion in the context of the faithful. At the same time it must be acknowledged that conversion is also to a great extent the work of the Holy Spirit, to convict infidels of their sin and move them to repent, as happened to Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus, which resulted in him being born again through baptism as the Holy Apostle Paul, going from being a persecutor of Christians to one of the Holy Apostles, and one particularly important for his role in spreading Christianity among the gentiles.*

*He was not alone in this: St. Thomas did similar work in the East, spreading Christianity as far as Kerala, in India, where he was martyred by an enraged Maharaja - this is because he did not limit his efforts to converting the many Jews who had settled along the overland trade route to India and in India itself (Edessa, Nineveh, Seleucia-Cstesiphon, the successor city to Babylon and the precursor city of Baghdad, the city having been relocated a few times in history due to the movement of the Tigris river causing it to become uninhabitable, which is why it has left such remarkable archaeological evidence), but also converted gentiles). Other apostles also received the crown of martyrdom spreading the faith to the gentiles, including St. Andrew the First Called and St. Bartholomew.

Do you have a verse to prove your case that the Holy Spirit is only given to the church to countermand all of the promises of the scripture that individuals can receive the Holy Spirit by following God's Word.. While our opinions are important to us, it's not equal to God's Holy Word. The scriptures I posted disagree with your statement. You can stick to writings outside the scripture, but we are told to stick with what God said and let His Word guide me Psa 119:105, because going outside of it we are warned is danger Isa 8:20

One can place their trust in their church, my faith is in Jesus Christ. We do not need an earthy mediator- we can go directly to Jesus. Thats not to say God does not have a Church Rev 12:17 Rev 14:12, but our church can't save us, only Jesus Christ can save us, and He gives us His Spirit though the conditions of scripture as posted in post 204, Sad people fall for this over claiming the promise of scriptures.

 

[David Lamb]

You can place your trust in your church, my faith is in Jesus Christ. We do not need a mediator- we can go directly to Him.

According to the bible, we have a Mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ:

“For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,” (1Ti 2:5 NKJV)

 

[SabbathBlessings]

According to the bible, we have a Mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ:

“For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,” (1Ti 2:5 NKJV)

SabbathBlessings said:
You can place your trust in your church, my faith is in Jesus Christ. We do not need a (earthy) mediator- we can go directly to Him.

Yes, that's what I am referring to- we can go directly to Jesus Christ- we don't need an earthy mediator. Those teaching we have to go through the church to receive Jesus and His Spirit is doing one a disservice.

 

[David Lamb]

Yes, that's what I am referring to- we can go directly to Jesus Christ- we don't need an earthy mediator. Those teaching we have to go through the church to receive Jesus and His Spirit is doing one a disservice.

That's much clearer, thanks for taking the trouble to reply. We're in agreement on this matter.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

That's much clearer, thanks for taking the trouble to reply. We're in agreement on this matter.

I can understand how that was not as clear as I meant it to be. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention.

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. John 14:6

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes, that's what I am referring to- we can go directly to Jesus Christ- we don't need an earthy mediator. Those teaching we have to go through the church to receive Jesus and His Spirit is doing one a disservice.

No, that’s a strawman argument. The Church is not a mediator. The Church is the means instituted by Jesus Christ, in Matthew 16:18, whose functions for our salvation are clearly delineated by the Holy Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians. Are you denying that 1 Corinthians, or the Gospel According to Matthew, or the other Epistles that are of an ecclesiological nature, such as Galatians and 2 Thessalonians are canonical?

Because if not, the role of the church is clear - it is not one of mediation but one of ministry. The Church is the both the Bride of Christ and the Body of Christ, composed of the faithful, presided over by Christ Himself, and this applies however one defines it - Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox, which is why what I say here is endorsed by Lutherans, Anglicans and other Protestants in addition to Orthodox Christians whose existence many Restorationists in the 19th century were unaware of as they sought to organize new denominations based on the erroneous interpretation of the Great Apostasy as something that had already happened, as opposed to an eschatological event, which is the only interpretation consistent with Matthew 16: 18 and the Pauline epistles.

What good would it do for the Holy Apostle Paul to tell us to anathematize those who preach a Gospel different from the one we have received (by tradition - 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15) if the Church was headed for an immediate effective destruction in a Great Apostasy that would last until someone in the 19th century thought to reimplement it based on new prophetic revelations of the Holy Spirit?

 

[The Liturgist]

Do you have a verse to prove your case that the Holy Spirit is only given to the church to countermand all of the promises of the scripture that individuals can receive the Holy Spirit by following God's Word..

That is not my “case.”

You did not follow my previous post. If one receives the Holy Spirit, one has been grafted onto the Church, and is therefore a member of the Church, which is typically understood by evangelical Protestants as consisting of all believing Christians. This is my point - the word Catholic as you used it has multiple interpretations, which is why it is part of the Creed as confessed by Protestants, which the SDA has declared that it agrees with.

So are you disagreeing with your denomination’s own ecclesiology?

I have supplied verses, and you have ignored them.

While our opinions are important to us, it's not equal to God's Holy Word.

I never said they were.

My statement was instead the factual statement that different Christians have different interpretations on what is meant by “Church”, but regardless of what one’s interpretation is of what the Church is, whether it consists of a local church, or a universal church of all believers, or if it is the Roman Catholic Church, or something else, those verses that grant it a teaching authority, such as Galatians 1:8-9 , remain.

The scriptures I posted disagree with your statement.

No, because you haven’t replied to my statement - you have replied to a strawman argument, whether intentionally or as a result of misunderstanding my post, but either way, the net effect is that the argument you are replying to is not the one that I made, but rather one that I would also disagree with.

You can stick to writings outside the scripture, but we are told to stick with what God said and let His Word guide me Psa 119:105, because going outside of it we are warned is danger Isa 8:20

No, you have presented a strawman argument to prop up an eisegesis by distorting the meaning of the word “Church” and have falsely accused me of depending on external documents.

But, while we are on the subject of writings that are part of the received tradition, are you saying you reject the Nicene Creed?

One can place their trust in their church, my faith is in Jesus Christ. We do not need an earthy mediator- we can go directly to Jesus. Thats not to say God does not have a Church Rev 12:17 Rev 14:12, but our church can't save us, only Jesus Christ can save us, and He gives us His Spirit though the conditions of scripture as posted in post 204, Sad people fall for this over claiming the promise of scriptures.

This is a gross distortion of my argument. It is such a distortion that I feel like you either did not read what I wrote, or you are simply quoting from anti-Roman Catholic polemical material which is inapplicable because I am not a Roman Catholic, and neither is @MarkRohfrietsch who you replied to, when you said you had replied to @concretecamper.

You seem to be grouping together everyone who appears to disagree with you as Roman Catholics, when this thread was posted by a Lutheran, and has had broad ecumenical participation, with only a minority of the posts in it by Roman Catholics.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

That is not my “case.”

You did not follow my previous post. If one receives the Holy Spirit, one has been grafted onto the Church,

Verse please and what is your definition of "the Church"

So is it your argument that one cannot receive the Holy Spirit unless they are part of "the Chruch"

So the Holy Spirit cannot correct individuals of their sins, only "the Chruch"?

 

[The Liturgist]

That's much clearer, thanks for taking the trouble to reply. We're in agreement on this matter.

The Church is not a mediator, but a means established in the Gospels and in Acts, by Jesus Christ, for ministry to the faithful.

That we have one mediator in Jesus Christ is correct, but this verse is one that should definitely be considered a widely abused verse, because it is abused in different ways by different groups, primarily to attack the Roman Catholic Church and other traditional churches, and also to attack those who believe in the intercessory prayer of the saints, which does not, I would note, contradict the idea that Jesus Christ is our sole mediator.

What is more, the verse is also abused in both an Arian and a crypto-Arian or semi-Arian manner, when it is understood as meaning that Jesus Christ, distinct from God, functions to mediate between us and God, which is the classic Arian argument, that Jesus Christ is only the Son of God, divine but not God Himself, having to sacrifice himself to appease the wrath of the angry Father, which is contrary to the Scriptural assertion of the Incarnation of God in John 1:1-18 and in the Doctrine of the Trinity, and in Scriptural fact that God is Love, and only does those things which are ultimately good for us.

 

[The Liturgist]

Verse please and what is your definition of "the Church"

My definition of the Church is irrelevant - my whole point is that there are different definitions, such as Universal Church ecclesiology, in which it is an invisible church of all believers, or the Local Church ecclesiology of Baptists and Congregationalists, or the Lutheran ecclesiology, which defines the church as wherever the Gospel is correctly preached and the sacraments of Baptism and Communion administered, roughly speaking (my Lutheran friends could elaborate it more succinctly), or the visible church ecclesiology of Rome, or many others.

Indeed, I would say that a definition of the Church is a particularly complex subject for me, because of my conviction (on the basis of Scripture, “that they may be one, just as you and I are one” and of the Patristic opposition to schisms), of the need for ecumenical reconciliation between the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and the traditional Protestants and those Roman Catholics who would prefer to retain the Traditional Latin Mass or other traditional liturgies, and the traditional moral theology, both of which are under attack by an increasingly powerful liberal faction in Catholicism. However, regardless of how one defines ecclesiology, those verses which relate to the Church remain. That is my entire point.

So is it your argument that one cannot receive the Holy Spirit unless they are part of "the Chruch"

For the third or fourth time, I forget now, no! This is not my argument! Literally that is the inverse of what I am saying. What I have said rather is that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which we confess in the Nicene Creed - when one receives the indwelling Holy Spirit, one has been grafted onto the Body of Christ, which is the Church, according to St. Paul in 1 Corinthians.

So the Holy Spirit cannot correct individuals of their sins, only "the Chruch"?

No! I literally wrote the opposite of that. The Holy Spirit convicts us of our sins, which causes us to have faith in Christ, and if we are not Christians at that point, if we are not members of the Church, the Holy Spirit moves us to become united with the Body of Christ. And baptism is normally a part of this, however one interprets baptism. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins.

Also, for the record, the only extra-Scriptural writing which I have stated is authoritative in the context of this thread is the Nicene Creed, or rather, more broadly, the CF.com Statement of Faith:

Statement of Faith

The Nicene Creed

We believe in (Romans 10:8-10; 1John 4:15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6:4, Ephesians 4:6)
the Father (Matthew 6:9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6:3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1:1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1:15-16)
And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11:17)
the Son of God, (Mathew 14:33; 16:16)
the Only-Begotten, (John 1:18; 3:16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1:2)
Light of Light; (Psalm 27:1; John 8:12; Matthew 17:2,5)
True God of True God; (John 17:1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1:18)
of one essence with the Father (John 10:30)
by whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1:1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (1Timothy 2:4-5)
came down from Heaven, (John 6:33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1:35)
and became man. (John 1:14)
And was crucified for us (Mark 15:25; 1Cointhians 15:3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19:6)
and suffered, (Mark 8:31)
and was buried. (Luke 23:53; 1Corinthians 15:4)
And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures. (Luke 24:1 1Corinthians 15:4)
And ascended into Heaven, (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father. (Mark 16:19; Acts 7:55)
And He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24:27)
to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10:42; 2Timothy 4:1)
whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1:11)
And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14:26)
the Lord, (Acts 5:3-4)
the Giver of Life, (Genesis 1:2)
Who proceeds from the Father; (John 15:26)
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3:16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19:20 ; Ezekiel 11:5,13) In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (1 Peter 2:5,9)
catholic*, (Mark 16:15)
and apostolic Church. (Acts 2:42; Ephesians 2:19-22)
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins**. (Ephesians 4:5; Acts 2:38)
I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11:24; 1Corinthians 15:12-49; Hebrews 6:2; Revelation 20:5)
and the life of the world to come. (Mark 10:29-30)
AMEN. (Psalm 106:48)

Notes

* The word "catholic" (literally, "complete," "universal," or "according to the whole") refers to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ and not necessarily or exclusively to any particular visible denomination, institution, or doctrine.

** May be interpreted as baptism is a matter of obedience and not a requirement for salvation or as a regenerating ordinance.

Faith groups and individuals that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation whereby He, as God, took on human flesh (becoming fully God and fully man in one person), are considered non-Christians at CF. Posts that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation are considered non-Christian theology and are not allowed in "Christians Only" forums. Discussions in all "Christians Only" forums must be in alignment with Trinitarian beliefs.

Challenging Paul's position as an Apostle of Jesus Christ who (although not one of the original twelve) was sent forth by Christ after his conversion [Acts 9:15-16], or arguing against the inclusion of Paul's writings in the New Testament canon, is not allowed in any "Christians Only" forums (including the Controversial Christian Theology forum). You may disagree on the interpretation and application of his writings, but not their place as canon or Paul as an inspired author of Scripture.

Unorthodox Christian theology may only be discussed in the Controversial Christian Theology forum. These unorthodox topics do not directly oppose the Nicene Creed, but are not considered to be orthodox on CF. These unorthodox topics may not contradict the Nicene Creed. Non-Trinitarianism may only be discussed in the Outreach category forums. Gnosticism may not be discussed in any CF forums. The Controversial Christian Theology forum is open to Christian members only (faith groups list). Unorthodox Christian theological topics include (but are not limited to):

Annihilationism
Full Preterism
Open Theism
Universalism

 

[SabbathBlessings]

The Church is not a mediator, but a means established in the Gospels and in Acts, by Jesus Christ, for ministry to the faithful.

That we have one mediator in Jesus Christ is correct, but this verse is one that should definitely be considered a widely abused verse, because it is abused in different ways by different groups, primarily to attack the Roman Catholic Church and other traditional churches, and also to attack those who believe in the intercessory prayer of the saints,

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

Intercession
(n.) Mediation between parties at variance; prayer, petition, or entreaty on behalf of another.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

My definition of the Church is irrelevant - my whole point is that there are different definitions, such as Universal Church ecclesiology, in which it is an invisible church of all believers, or the Local Church ecclesiology of Baptists and Congregationalists, or the Lutheran ecclesiology, which defines the church as wherever the Gospel is correctly preached and the sacraments of Baptism and Communion administered, roughly speaking (my Lutheran friends could elaborate it more succinctly), or the visible church ecclesiology of Rome, or many others.

Indeed, I would say that a definition of the Church is a particularly complex subject for me, because of my conviction (on the basis of Scripture, “that they may be one, just as you and I are one” and of the Patristic opposition to schisms), of the need for ecumenical reconciliation between the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and the traditional Protestants and those Roman Catholics who would prefer to retain the Traditional Latin Mass or other traditional liturgies, and the traditional moral theology, both of which are under attack by an increasingly powerful liberal faction in Catholicism. However, regardless of how one defines ecclesiology, those verses which relate to the Church remain. That is my entire point.



For the third or fourth time, I forget now, no! This is not my argument! Literally that is the inverse of what I am saying. What I have said rather is that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which we confess in the Nicene Creed - when one receives the indwelling Holy Spirit, one has been grafted onto the Body of Christ, which is the Church, according to St. Paul in 1 Corinthians.



No! I literally wrote the opposite of that. The Holy Spirit convicts us of our sins, which causes us to have faith in Christ, and if we are not Christians at that point, if we are not members of the Church, the Holy Spirit moves us to become united with the Body of Christ. And baptism is normally a part of this, however one interprets baptism. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins.

Also, for the record, the only extra-Scriptural writing which I have stated is authoritative in the context of this thread is the Nicene Creed, or rather, more broadly, the CF.com Statement of Faith:

Statement of Faith

The Nicene Creed

We believe in (Romans 10:8-10; 1John 4:15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6:4, Ephesians 4:6)
the Father (Matthew 6:9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6:3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1:1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1:15-16)
And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11:17)
the Son of God, (Mathew 14:33; 16:16)
the Only-Begotten, (John 1:18; 3:16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1:2)
Light of Light; (Psalm 27:1; John 8:12; Matthew 17:2,5)
True God of True God; (John 17:1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1:18)
of one essence with the Father (John 10:30)
by whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1:1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (1Timothy 2:4-5)
came down from Heaven, (John 6:33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1:35)
and became man. (John 1:14)
And was crucified for us (Mark 15:25; 1Cointhians 15:3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19:6)
and suffered, (Mark 8:31)
and was buried. (Luke 23:53; 1Corinthians 15:4)
And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures. (Luke 24:1 1Corinthians 15:4)
And ascended into Heaven, (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father. (Mark 16:19; Acts 7:55)
And He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24:27)
to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10:42; 2Timothy 4:1)
whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1:11)
And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14:26)
the Lord, (Acts 5:3-4)
the Giver of Life, (Genesis 1:2)
Who proceeds from the Father; (John 15:26)
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3:16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19:20 ; Ezekiel 11:5,13) In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (1 Peter 2:5,9)
catholic*, (Mark 16:15)
and apostolic Church. (Acts 2:42; Ephesians 2:19-22)
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins**. (Ephesians 4:5; Acts 2:38)
I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11:24; 1Corinthians 15:12-49; Hebrews 6:2; Revelation 20:5)
and the life of the world to come. (Mark 10:29-30)
AMEN. (Psalm 106:48)

Notes

* The word "catholic" (literally, "complete," "universal," or "according to the whole") refers to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ and not necessarily or exclusively to any particular visible denomination, institution, or doctrine.

** May be interpreted as baptism is a matter of obedience and not a requirement for salvation or as a regenerating ordinance.

Faith groups and individuals that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation whereby He, as God, took on human flesh (becoming fully God and fully man in one person), are considered non-Christians at CF. Posts that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation are considered non-Christian theology and are not allowed in "Christians Only" forums. Discussions in all "Christians Only" forums must be in alignment with Trinitarian beliefs.

Challenging Paul's position as an Apostle of Jesus Christ who (although not one of the original twelve) was sent forth by Christ after his conversion [Acts 9:15-16], or arguing against the inclusion of Paul's writings in the New Testament canon, is not allowed in any "Christians Only" forums (including the Controversial Christian Theology forum). You may disagree on the interpretation and application of his writings, but not their place as canon or Paul as an inspired author of Scripture.

Unorthodox Christian theology may only be discussed in the Controversial Christian Theology forum. These unorthodox topics do not directly oppose the Nicene Creed, but are not considered to be orthodox on CF. These unorthodox topics may not contradict the Nicene Creed. Non-Trinitarianism may only be discussed in the Outreach category forums. Gnosticism may not be discussed in any CF forums. The Controversial Christian Theology forum is open to Christian members only (faith groups list). Unorthodox Christian theological topics include (but are not limited to):

Annihilationism
Full Preterism
Open Theism
Universalism

All that and yet no scripture to prove your case. I am not interested in what other people think or teach about the bible, I care what the bible teaches.

There is no such church in scriptures that has a vastly different teachings of doctrines- so your statement that one can't receive the Holy Spirit unless part of "the church" but can't even agree on doctrine as if there is more than one Truth, when there is not. This goes back to what the bible teaches about the Holy Spirit and how one receives it and not one verse says we only receive it if we are part of "the Chruch". We will never be saved because we are part of "the church" our church can't save us, only Jesus saves. We each have to have our own personal relationship with Jesus Christ and have faith in Him and scripture shows us that someone with faith does not live like someone without faith. Rev 14:12 Thats why the Holy Spirit works with individuals if we hear His voice Heb 3:7-8. So many people are church centered when we need to be Christ centered. Christ is first, not the other way around.

 

[The Liturgist]

All that and yet no scripture to prove your case. I am not interested in what other people think or teach about the bible, I care what the bible teaches.

False. I have provided verse after verse. 1 Corinthians 11:2 Galatians 1:8-9 Matthew 16:18 Matthew 28:19 Ephesians 4:5 Acts 2:38

It is untrue to say that I have not provided scripture, when I have. You might not agree with my exegesis of that scripture, but I have provided scripture, and when challenged by you on my interpretation of Scripture I have backed up my arguments with more Scripture.

There is no such church in scriptures that has a vastly different teachings of doctrines- so your statement that one can't receive the Holy Spirit unless part of "the church" but can't even agree on doctrine, goes back to what the bible teaches about the Holy Spirit and how one receives it and not one verse says we only receive it if we are part of "the Chruch".

Once again, for the fifth time, I did not say that. Please stop accusing me of saying something about the Holy Spirit that I have not said.

We will never be saved because we are part of "the church" our church can't save us, only Jesus saves.

The manner in which Jesus Christ saves us is through the Church, which is stated by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians to be His Body. The Church IS the Body of Christ. So if we are saved in Christ, it is through the Church, however you define it.

We each have to have our own personal relationship with Jesus Christ and have faith in Him and scripture shows us that someone with faith does not live like someone without faith. Rev 14:12 Thats why the Holy Spirit works with individuals if we hear His voice Heb 3:7-8.

Nothing in those two verses, Revelation 14:12 or Hebrews 3:7-8 contradicts anything that I have said.

So many people are church centered when we need to be Christ centered. Christ is first, not the other way around.

On this point we agree, if by church you mean a sect, and not the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church contained in the Nicene Creed, insofar as numerous people adhere to the doctrines of various Restorationist groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses even where these doctrines are not compatible with Scripture, but the problem is, these people are members of counterfeit churches, and if you were to ask them, they would say they were Christ centered, but they have been taught a counterfeit Christ.

This is why we have the Nicene Creed - as a definitive means of summarizing the statements of Scripture as a means of defining normative Christianity. And I can assure you, as someone who is presumably in agreement with the Nicene Creed, that I have only been speaking of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church defined in the same Nicene Creed that you and I both confess, and not any specific denomination.