The Gospel Verses Religion

[timothyu]

However, that should only bother those crazy progressives on the political left who get very upset whenever they see anyone engage in cultural appropriation.

Like whoever wrote those four scriptures?

 

[FenderTL5]

If Pope’s jurisdiction lies exclusively in Rome then how was he able to convene all of those ecumenical councils of bishops..
..They agree that only the bishop of Rome has the authority to convene an ecumenical council..

This was nonsense when you posted it in the other thread.
However, We can put this to the test.

The first council of the Church is recorded in Acts 15. With few exceptions, all of Christendom accepts this Council's decision. We don't know exactly who called for it, implications are it was Paul and Barnabas and it was presided over by James who was Bishop in Jerusalem. This does not fit your declaration above. In order to fit your model, it would have been Cephas/Peter who convoked the Council and/or presided over it. Neither is the case, yet we accept it.

Let's move on to the 7 Echumenical Councils accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Churches and by the Latin Church.
First Council of Nicaea (325) which was convoked by Emperor Constantine I and presided over by Hosius of Corduba. This is an important council and again, All of Christendom (with few exceptions) accept this council. It was neither convoked by nor presided over by a Pope of Rome, yet we accept it.

The First Council of Constantinople AD 381 this council was convened by Emperor Theodosius I and presided over by Timothy of Alexandria, Meletius of Antioch, Gregory Nazianzus, and Nectarius of Constantinople. Again, this does not fit your declaration that it must be called for by the Pope, yet we accept it.

The Council of Ephesus AD 431 called for by the Roman Emperor Theodosius II presided over by Cyril of Alexandria. This third ecumenical council confirmed the original Nicene Creed forbidding any additional change to it, condemned the teachings of Nestorius, differentiating Christotokos, "Christ-bearer" from the correct title Theotokos, "God-bearer" as a statement concerning the God-hood of Christ. Both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches accept this council but it does not fit your notion that only a Pope can call for it.

Council of Chalcedon 451 AD was the fourth ecumenical council. It was convoked by the Roman emperor Marcian. The Pope didn't even attend but it was presided over by Papal legates Paschasinus, Lucentius and Boniface. This one is a maybe in your column.

Second Council of Constantinople 553 is the fifth of the first seven ecumenical councils recognized by both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. It was convoked by the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I under the presidency of Patriarch Eutychius of Constantinople — only sixteen Western bishops were present, including nine from Illyricum and seven from Africa, but none from Italy including the Pope. This is a definite nope toward your notion.

Third Council of Constantinople 680–681, counted as the Sixth Ecumenical Council by the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches The patriarchs of Constantinople and of Antioch participated in person, whereas the patriarchates of Alexandria and Jerusalem were represented by Byzantine appointees (because of the Saracen Muslim conquest there was at this date no patriarch in either of these sees). The Pope and a council he had held in Rome were represented by a few priests and bishops.

Second Council of Nicaea AD 787 the last of the first seven ecumenical councils accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. Pope Adrian I was invited to participate, accepted, but did not attend sending an archbishop and an abbot as his legates. Which is contrary to your statement that the EO only accept those councils called for by the Pope.

That's the Seven Ecumenical Councils. It would be a stretch to say any of them fit beyond a maybe to your notion that only the Pope can call for them.

One of the reasons the EO do not accept later councils as being ecumenical is because Orthodoxy is honest enough to recognize that the Church is not unified as long as Rome remains in schism. Given all of Rome's errant children, the unification we all long for remains very difficult. That is, however, a far cry from your statement that only the Pope can call for an ecumenical council.

 

[RobertPate]

Don't separate justification from sanctification- they are part and parcel of the same process- of transforming us into God's image. An error of the Reformers was in definitively separating the two. If righteousness, by the life of the Trinity dwelling within us, is not begun at justification then justification is rendered pretty much meangingless, comprised of forgiveness of sin only for all practical purposes. If that is the case then no actual righteousness, with a life lived accordingly, is necessary for salvation-and yet Scripture says otherwise. We need to understand the role and purpose of faith, which is to unite us with God, who can accomplish in us what we cannot.

And as far as absolute assurance of eternal security, BTW, that was never a position of the early churches in the east or west, or of the ECFs. That's a novel invention that not all Protestants or Sola Scriptura adherents agree on even.

Catholics don't believe in justification by faith alone. This is where their doctrine runs off of the rails and becomes a train wreck. We are justified by faith alone, because are justified by Christ alone. Jesus justifies the ungodly, Romans 4:5 and reconciles them and the world unto God, 2 Corinthians 5:18-19.

Our salvation is totally and completely outside of us. It took place over 2,000 years ago. Paul wrote, "But God commended his love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8. No laws, rules or religion needed.

 

[timothyu]

Our salvation is totally and completely outside of us.

Yes but that only applies to resurrection. There is still only one entrance and an admission fee, ways of the Kingdom over ways of man, will of God over our own. (which rules out all institutions of man - religious or secular)

 

[RobertPate]

Yes but that only applies to resurrection. There is still only one entrance and an admission fee, ways of the Kingdom over ways of man, will of God over our own. (which rules out all institutions of man - religious or secular)

Yes, there is only one way into the Kingdom.

If anyone goes to heaven it will be on the merits of Jesus Christ and not their own.

 

[childeye 2]

Yes, there is only one way into the Kingdom.

If anyone goes to heaven it will be on the merits of Jesus Christ and not their own.

We even need to be thankful to God for being thankful to God.

 

[GDL]

Catholics don't believe in justification by faith alone.

Many studied Protestants know that Faith is never alone.

 

[RobertPate]

We even need to be thankful to God for being thankful to God.

Being thankful is a work of the Holy Spirit. Christians live a life of gratitude for what Jesus has done for them.

 

[RobertPate]

Many studied Protestants know that Faith is never alone.

If it isn't by faith alone, then it is by works.

 

[GDL]

If it isn't by faith alone, then it is by works.

That's the slogan. Many of us prefer Scripture.

 

[RobertPate]

That's the slogan. Many of us prefer Scripture.

God does not accept the works or the obedience of sinners, which we are all one of, Romans 3:10. God only accepts the works and the obedience of Jesus Christ, we are accepted only in him and because of him.

 

[childeye 2]

People tend to argue semantics because they don't qualify the term "works". The term works is qualified different ways in scripture. For example, works of faith and works of the law are not the same thing.

 

[GDL]

God does not accept the works or the obedience of sinners, which we are all one of, Romans 3:10. God only accepts the works and the obedience of Jesus Christ, we are accepted only in him and because of him.

Actually, there's obedience in Faith, so He accepts our Faith/Obedience when we come to Christ to receive the benefits of Christ's obedience. Then once made alive in Christ by grace through Faith/Obedience, God accepts our faithfully obedient works He created us to do and enables us to do by His Spirit under grace.

 

[RobertPate]

Actually, there's obedience in Faith, so He accepts our Faith/Obedience when we come to Christ to receive the benefits of Christ's obedience. Then once made alive in Christ by grace through Faith/Obedience, God accepts our faithfully obedient works He created us to do and enables us to do by His Spirit under grace.

It sounds to me like you have embraced a holiness theology, Catholic, Pentecostalism, etc.

All works that a Christian does is out of gratitude for what Christ has done for us. Never to be accepted for salvation, because we are ALREADY accepted in him. If God accepted the works of a sinner, that would make him a sinner. This is why our works are not acceptable to God, nor are they acceptable to Christ, Romans 3:10.

 

[The Liturgist]

What do you call a religion that abandons the Kingdom and returns to harlot itself to the world of man as was done 1700 years ago?

Gnosticism.

 

[The Liturgist]

Are you talking about the Catholic Church’s relationship between the Catholic Church and the Roman Emperor Constantine? If you are, you are talikng to the right guy. This topic has been a passion of mine for years. There’s probably only a handful of people in the world as knowledgable as me on this subject.

The truth is, that Constantine was the cause of only one change that occured in the church during his reign as Roman Emperor, and all Protestants have happily accepted that change.

You see, prior to the Council of Nicaea, Easter was celebrated on different days by the many local churches. He believed that this was harmful to unity in the church, so he discussed his concerns to the bishops at the council.

They apparently like his idea of all Christians celebrating Easter on the same day, so bishops agreed to establish a single day of the year on which all Christians would celebrate Easter.

After some discussions, the bishops at the Council of Nicaea settled on the day. Since the Council of Nicaea, all Christians of the world have continued to the practice of celebrating on the first Sunday following the first full moon after the spring equinox.

I’m curious, are you horrified knowing that you and I both celebrate Easter on the same day of the year because of the good inentions of a pagan?

The main thing you need to know about Constantine is that he was under the belief. whether real or imagined, that the Christian God had given him the responsibility to protect the Catholic Church from falling into apostacy. In addition, Constantine lived in constant fear that if he raid in this responsibility. the Christian God would end his reign as emperor. Since he was not a Christian, and knew nothing of Christian theology, he left theological decisions up to the church hierarchy. He even told the bishops, “The Catholic Church has it’s bishops. but I am the bishop of the pagans.”

Does that sound like a person that would have brought heresy in to the Church?

I have a wealth of information on the subject of Constantine, so if you would like to discuss it further that would be great.

Furthermore, St. Constantine was officially a Catechumen and not a Pagan at Nicaea, and in being baptized in extremis (that is to say, just before he died), he was actually engaging in a fairly common practice of the time among people who believed themselves very serious sinners and who were worried that they would return to sin after baptism. Fortunately the early church was able to get a handle on peoples fears, but baptism right before death was unfortunately fairly common, a situation not helped by the likes of Tertullian and other rigorists who insisted that any sins committed post-baptism would not be forgiven. However as was pointed out by the likes of the Cappadocians, St. Athanasius (the leader at Nicaea), St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose of Milan and St. Augustine, we think sinful thoughts and engage in sins so frequently that if that were the case baptism would have no benefit for us.

 

[The Liturgist]

It’s true that the church has had its share of problems, and still does, but I have never found any evidence to show that, when it comes to doctrine, the Catholic Church has never taught heresy. I did not want to be Catholic, and I desperately tried to prove heresy in the church, but I never found any. On the other, I discovered plenty of doctrines taught by the Protestant Reformers, and all of their offspring.

If you have any evidence of the Catholic Church teaching heresy, I would love to see it. However, I ask that you please don’t waste my time with personal opinions. Just try to make a case that the Catholic Church has ever strayed from first century Christian doctrines.

The only real theological controversies involving Roman Catholicism are those cases where its praxis has, in the run up to Great Schism often dated to the year 1054, although not really a fait acccompli until the Fourth Crusade, changed relative to that of the Eastern Orthodox and its own practices and beliefs. The major controversies being of course the filioque, delayed communion, delayed confirmation, the doctrine of created grace, et cetera. In the grand scheme of things these problems are relatively minor.

There was one minor incident, not unique to the Roman Catholic church, in the sixth century, in which in league with the Emperor of Constantinople, Pope Honorius I promoted the doctrine of Monothelitism in a failed attempt to reconcile the Oriental Orthodox. This doctrine was correctly rejected by the Oriental Orthodox, with the possible exception of a portion of the Syriac Orthodox Church which broke away and became the Maronite Church, which was forced to abandon the doctrine when it entered into communion with Rome in the 12th century, for at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics collectively agreed that Monothelitism was a heresy. However, as far as I am aware, Pope Honorius was not personally anathematized.

 

[RobertPate]

The only real theological controversies involving Roman Catholicism are those cases where its praxis has, in the run up to Great Schism often dated to the year 1054, although not really a fait acccompli until the Fourth Crusade, changed relative to that of the Eastern Orthodox and its own practices and beliefs. The major controversies being of course the filioque, delayed communion, delayed confirmation, the doctrine of created grace, et cetera. In the grand scheme of things these problems are relatively minor.

There was one minor incident, not unique to the Roman Catholic church, in the sixth century, in which in league with the Emperor of Constantinople, Pope Honorius I promoted the doctrine of Monothelitism in a failed attempt to reconcile the Oriental Orthodox. This doctrine was correctly rejected by the Oriental Orthodox, with the possible exception of a portion of the Syriac Orthodox Church which broke away and became the Maronite Church, which was forced to abandon the doctrine when it entered into communion with Rome in the 12th century, for at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics collectively agreed that Monothelitism was a heresy. However, as far as I am aware, Pope Honorius was not personally anathematized.

What do you think about Chrislam? Are you for it or against it? Muslims do not believe in the deity of Christ.

 

[FenderTL5]

.

 

[The Liturgist]

What do you think about Chrislam? Are you for it or against it? Muslims do not believe in the deity of Christ.

How could I possibly be in support of it? It is an evil heretical cult which seeks to mix Christianity with elements of Islam, which has proven itself to be one of the two greatest threats to Christianity, along with Communism, and it denies the deity of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ. And by specifically thriving in the context of the Yoruba people, it threatens to undo the work of the many heroic missionaries both from abroad and among the Yoruba themselves who have dedicated their life, and in some cases even received a crown of martyrdom, so as to spread the Gospel among these people.

By the way, what does Chrislam have to do with anything in my post you replied to? Forgive me, but I am just not seeing the connection, and begging your pardon, it feels to some extent like you might as well have asked me what I think of Rastafarianism or the Moonies.