Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
More absurdSo you're with those who walked away and went back to their former lives. Got it.
like I careWell the doctrine of the Trinity is Tradition...it's not really simple, either.
Men guided by the Holy Spirit. As Jesus said in the gospel.What do you call 200 plus bishops of Rome, over twenty ecumenical councils, and the magisterium, if not men? You even make legend and custom into doctrine. Those come from men rather than God, too. That's who made your belief system.
Right. Under one authority-the pope. Whether you adhere to him or not.As for Christ instating of his church, all of us who believe are the objects of that authorization. We are all, as has been note many times here, the branches of the same tree, the "undivided church" of antiquity. That is true of the RCC, EO, Anglicans, Copts, Armenians, etc. etc.
It is what you stated, though.like I care
The point being that your question wasn't about the faith, but theologians arguing over a minor point. But if you think so, ok. That's not for me or you to determine.If we only need agreement on questions essential to salvation, then us Protestants are doing OK,
Again, you miss the point. I'm not talking about NABRE or NJV or KJV. I'm talking about our understanding of it, as the Church has taught us through her authority.That's very, very disturbing, if true.
However, when I look at the most recent Catholic Bible (the NABRE), that doesn't seem to be the case.
They met because they loved Christ.They met because they loved one another.
I voted no denomination, but one Church, as Christ proclaimed.Not surprisingly, when people say that there should only be one denomination, they believe that one denomination should believe exactly what they believe.
But that church is going to disagree on various issues. I believe that there is only one church, but various denominations within that church.I voted no denomination, but one Church, as Christ proclaimed.
Well, all you are saying there is that the ones you like--or your denomination likes--are deemed by you to have been guided by the Holy Spirit (and the ones that are not so admired by the same people are deemed not to have been so guided).Men guided by the Holy Spirit.
They met because they loved Christ.
I've probably studied more church history, early fathers, conciliar documents, etc, than your average farmer, and possibly more than some historians depending on their specific field of studies but I’ll concede that you should know more about the topic than myself. My response to you was a sort of knee-jerk reaction as many posters, and at least one on this thread, in fact, like to assert that they know what the early church, as distinct from the RCC, was like and that their own church therefore follows and reflects that correct path. This is generally based on the sketchy information that the bible provides. But we all at least do know from the bible as well as from popular history that the early church was poor, simple, and persecuted. We also know that Constantine sanctioned Christianity at one point. But as often as not few Christians have looked much deeper than that.Not actually a specialist in ancient history, then. Well, thanks for responding. Anyway, I wouldn't tell you that no one knows where V-8 juice comes from, so maybe you should hold back on saying that no one knows what happened in the past; there is very little, in fact, that isn't known about our history, right own to very small matters. Certainly how the church developed in the first century is not in that category.
There are innumerable works available to you in any library and I have recommended a number of them to other posters in the past. But this wasn't about some very specific event; you said that no one knows what the early church did. That suggests a more basic need.
I think it should've been obvious that the actual usage of the terms wasn't the point, but rather what they are about, why their existence and meanings are important at all regardless of what names are used to identify those concepts. IOW, it doesn't matter if one has never heard the term "Anaphora", but it's significant if we don't understand what that word is used to signify.I would say that it depends on which churches you have in mind, although you are right that those particular terms are not normally used (and, frankly, it doesn't matter much whether they are or are not).
But isn’t that also like saying, let's not take issue with the JW's? After all, they consider themselves to be Church. Does the Church have the right and duty to maintain a unity of faith, to distinguish and address false teachings? And if so, what Church? And what, except a single institution, has any hope or possibility of even doing so? Who or what could even call an ecumenical council where all denominations could be expected to attend and participate?Lets think about exploring that particular slant on the subject, shall we? Why, I am wondering, should that matter--as opposed, for example, to the survival of the truth, to the orders of ministry, to the administration of the sacraments, and to the continuing expansion of Christianity to all nations, etc?
Why a single institution, whether it is right or wrong? We know from the New Testament itself that there were many separate churches in the early days, and the writers of the Epistles criticized the performance of some of them but not that they were operating independently from other churches in other cities.
I can say this. If you study the history--and I doubt that you ever had the inclination to look into this particular matter further, being content to think of the British church and the CofE just as your own church tells you to think of it--you may be quite surprised. And yes, it is as I said.And this farm boy knows at least enough to question the historical accuracy of the notion that the Church of England was a sort of resurrection of the original, pre-Roman, British church or that the RCC is distinct from the Church of Rome. And that such assertions should be supported- with some responsible unbiased history to the extent possible.
No, Paul did mention baptizing a few but he pushes all this talk of baptism aside and says christ sent me not to baptize. Then he says lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. Connecting water baptism as a work that men do which would add to the work of Christ on the cross and make men justified by works which is not true. If we could be saved by works of righteousness that we do this would make Christ work on the cross of no effect.What it shows is that Paul, who was called personally by God, was assigned to another role, that's all.
That is because he was speaking there about the gospel and salvation rather than baptism. Nothing there negates baptism.
In other words, he was the officiant, the administrator, the baptizer in those cases. This destroys your claim about some purely mental or spiritual events being actual "baptisms" alongside sacramental baptism.No, Paul did mention baptizing a few
There is nothing strange or contradictory about that.but he pushes all this talk of baptism aside and says christ sent me not to baptize.
Then he says lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. Connecting water baptism as a work that men do which would add to the wirk if Christ on the cross and make men justified by works which is not true. If we could be saved by works of righteousness that we do this would make Christ work on the cross of no effect.
No, Paul did mention baptizing a few but he pushes all this talk of baptism aside and says christ sent me not to baptize. Then he says lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. Connecting water baptism as a work that men do which would add to the wirk if Christ on the cross and make men justified by works which is not true. If we could be saved by works of righteousness that we do this would make Christ work on the cross of no effect.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?