- Status
J
JRKH
Guest
Steve’s post here is a very good response - but I would like to add a bit.
The “Top down” view seems to indicate (in my experience) a view that sees the Church structure as "power’ and something that “imposes” without concern for what others think. This is actually quite inaccurate. There are two aspects to this that should be considered.
- Councilior methodology -
Note in Scripture that the matter in Acts 15 is brought to the Elders of the universal Church. It was brought to a a council and we hear that there was debate…the various sides were heard. We can also know that these elders were praying diligently for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The result was a teaching that was applied universally. Of course this teaching agreed with one group in the debate and disagreed with the other group. But the consensus was that the mosaic law was not to be applied. - Teachers - Pupils. Jesus spoke about being teachers and how they will be held to a higher standard at judgement…So - as He said - few should be teachers. The NT is full of teaching and learning but always as a group. This is what being part of a unified ekklesia is about. Sharing and checking one against the other and moving toward Truth.
These two things combine into a repository of the best thinking, and the most sound teaching which is available to all the faithful worldwide.
If one thinks of the Hierarchy - the Magisterium of the Church in terms of “responsibility” and in terms of being a “school” instead of thinking in terms of “power” and “governance” I think that one will have a much better idea of the reality of how and why the Church is set up like it is.
Just some thoughts…
Peace
James
S
SteveVH
Guest
Wonderful post. Thank you for this.
J
JRKH
Guest
You are welcome…
I’ve come to the conclusion that many view “authority” as “power” and “imposition” instead of considering the weightier issues of “responsibility” and “cohesion” and “coordination”.
Peace
James
S
SteveVH
Guest
It’s a great point. When the Pope calls himself the servant of servants he means it. Our current Pope embodies that title. I think the image of the Church as “Mother” is most fitting and represents her true identity as one who cares for, teaches, forgives, consoles and shows great love and concern for her children.
T
TimothyH
Guest
How are the Quakers different from the Shakers?
-Tim-
-Tim-
S
SteveVH
Guest
After an impressive show of self control on my part, I assure you, I have decided to restrain myself…
P
Publisher
Guest
The Shakers are the spiritual decendents of Mother Ann Lee. I believe they have their origins in Upper New York State and have their origins in the “Utopia” movements that occured in the 17th centrury.
Mother Ann was considered to be the “second coming”. Shakers live a life of celibacy…there are only a handful of Shakers left and they are quite old.
S
SteveVH
Guest
Interesting. Thanks, Publisher.
J
JRKH
Guest
Amen -
Of course in fairness - especially to our separated brethren - historically the pope and bishops had the dual role in Europe of being both spiritual leaders and also temporal / governmental officials and these dual roles proved problematic.
Of course today this is really no longer the case.
Peace
James
S
SteveVH
Guest
Very true.
V
VQR
Guest
Expanding the quote to John 3:4-6 add some context:
*“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”
Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit…"*
“Born of water” here is referencing physical birth from our mothers, as contrast with being “born again” as a Christian. I think that in context it is clear that Jesus is not talking about water Baptism.
I was a little concerned that my last post on this subject could come off as patronizing, and it would appear I may have been correct. I did not mean to infer any connotations of the Catholic Church as domineering, or other similarly pejorative notions that are symptoms of blatant anti-Catholicism that I would imagine you encounter frequently on this board and elsewhere.
That said, we may have to agree to disagree as to whether the structure of the early church was a necessary precedent or simply the most logical way to communicate fledgling doctrine at the time and with the technological limitations on communication that existed at the time. It is unsurprising that we disagree on this, of course since the lack of structure is a very visible and obvious difference between Catholicism and Friends. I may try to respond more satisfactorily in time.
V
VQR
Guest
I do not think this possibly could be true for Quakers that do not believe in God. More generally, a key trait of many liberal Quakers is that they believe personal guidance through the Holy Spirit may contradict and overrule the Bible.
By contrast, if I felt I was being led in a manner irreconcilable with the Bible, I would assume that the fault was with myself and not Scripture.
J
JRKH
Guest
Please do not worry - I did not read you as “patronizing”…just incorrect.
As I stated in my replies, there seems to be a common understanding among protestants that the Church is “top down” or “oligarchy” or even “dictatorship” type of system in which the laymen has no real freedom or (name removed by moderator)ut. Such is simply not the case.
A closer look, and a slightly different perspective can give a very different outlook.
Well - right now we are just sharing. It’s not as though we are trying to convert each other. That would be against forum rules.
That said, I do think that an exploration of the best way (or ways) to preserve and spread the Gospel down through history could be beneficial - whether that exploration occurs in conversation here or just in your own mind.
You did just fine. However, feel free to share whatever you like.
Peace
James
R
Razanir
Guest
Out of question, what do you think of sacred Tradition? That would be things that while they aren’t mentioned specifically in the Bible, you still hold them as authoritative teaching. Examples include (to Quakers) water not being necessary for Baptism, or for any Christian group, Biblical canon (list of books of the Bible).
Because to the best of my understanding, there are really two versions of Sola Scriptura. The “traditional” Lutheran view is that Tradition is a thing, but that the Bible holds authority over it. Whereas most modern Protestant groups treat it as “If it’s not in the Bible, it’s not a valid teaching” (which, by the way, is hypocritical).
Both are in contrast to the Catholic view that Scripture and Tradition are held in equal standing.
Oh, and if any Lutheran posters find a mistake in what I said, feel free to correct me.
S
SteveVH
Guest
You mean Christ was saying that one cannot enter the kingdom of God unless they are physically born? Is that not a redundant statement? If that was the case then why would he have not just said that one cannot enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of the Spirit, since those to whom he was speaking had obviously, according to your interpretation, already been born of water? Why would Jesus tell someone already living that they must be born of water? That seems nonsensical.
Oh, I wouldn’t worry too much about it. I think it is evident to everyone here, at least to me, that you are not here with ill feelings or some sort of agenda to bad-mouth the Church.
As to your comments concerning the hierarchical structure of the Church being necessary due to the time and culture in which it was established, I think you miss a very important principle of the purpose of the Church. Christ did not leave us with writings in order to figure out our faith. He established a Church to protect what had been handed down by the Apostles; a divine protection given to preserve the Truth he came to reveal. It is the Church which was given the great commission to go out and teach all nations.
The Bible is a product of that Church which already held the fullness of truth before a word of the New Testament was written and certainly before the sacred texts were canonized.
Non-Catholic Christians are left with only the written word, which, by its own admission, does not contain everything said by Jesus or the Apostles and is subject to the erroneous interpretations of individuals who place themselves in the position of Pope and Magisterium.
R
Russ_of_Tokyo
Guest
I went to a college (Malone College) which was associated with the Evangelical Friends ( a Quaker branch) and often attended the services at the local Friends Church. After I graduated I was even asked if I would consider becoming a Quaker pastor at a local church. (Of course I would have had to eventually resign when I became Catholic )
On the surface there were no differences between the Friends Church and most other Evangelical Protestant Churches, but they did not have Baptism, which puts more distance between them and the Catholic Church than the average Protestant denomination.
)On the surface there were no differences between the Friends Church and most other Evangelical Protestant Churches, but they did not have Baptism, which puts more distance between them and the Catholic Church than the average Protestant denomination.
V
VQR
Guest
“Born again Christian” is so ingrained into our lexicon that we (at least I) do not really think twice about what a powerful analogy it is. Nicodemus had the honor of being present to hear Jesus coin this phrase (John 3:3) but the disadvantage of having to be the first to think it through. In John 3:4 he seems a little slow on the uptake, so Jesus walks him through it, using repetition to emphasize the contrast.
In my reading and interpretation of John 3, verses 1-21 simply are not talking about baptism at all except in the sense that any passage about salvation is relevant to the concept of spiritual baptism. By contrast, verses 22-36 (separated by the transitional phrase “after this” concluding the teaching session with Nicodemus), provide the most explicit of examples of physical baptism in v. 22-23: “After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized. Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were coming and being baptized.”
Now, it crossed my mind that this could be saying that Jesus spiritually baptized converts without water while John was still using water, but this seems unlikely. We would not use a homonym for two uses so close together and cannot expect less of the Bible. The last noun in verse 25 is translated in NIV as “ceremonial washing,” which made me think that maybe Jesus was doing something different physically than John, but the Greek word “katharismos” has the first definition “cleansing” and definitely need not involve water, for example as used in 2 Peter 1:9. Possibly a poor word choice by the translator; NASV and KJV both say “purification.”
So, I think we will agree that in the second half of John 3, Jesus is physically performing water baptisms. This reinforces the belief I already had, that it is perfectly acceptable to perform the physical sacrament of baptism.
I believe the Bible is the only written Word of God that is sacred. Other writings, whether by early Christians, CS Lewis, George Fox, or a contemporary Catholic can contain truth but are all equally fallible. I also believe, therefore, that the Deuterocanonical books are equally fallible as other writings. To keep things balanced, the Westminster Confession of Faith including its famously anti-Catholic propaganda is also quite fallible.
This means that my beliefs are between the Lutheran view as defined above and the Protestant view as defined above (I think the latter is an oversimplification), and definitely different than the Catholic view of Tradition being in equal standing. All Christians share a common heritage in the early and not-so-early Church, whether they admit it or not; and evangelical Christianity certainly has its own traditions whether or not they are considered equivalent to Scripture.
J
JRKH
Guest
Much of the discussion has come down to discussing your specific beliefs - which fine and most interesting…
but getting back to the original topic…“Ask a Quaker”…
It appears that one cannot discuss what “Quakers believe” because “Quakers” (as a group) do not seem to believe much of anything.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it almost seems like they are defined by what they are NOT rather than what they ARE.
They are not creedal… they are not hierarchical… they are not Sola Scriptura…etc…
In some ways it seems like about the only thing common across the group is some nomenclature. “Meeting house” instead of Church etc.
Please understand that I do not mean this as an attack. It’s just the sense that I am getting and wanted to ask if I’m off base here.
Peace
James
but getting back to the original topic…“Ask a Quaker”…
It appears that one cannot discuss what “Quakers believe” because “Quakers” (as a group) do not seem to believe much of anything.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it almost seems like they are defined by what they are NOT rather than what they ARE.
They are not creedal… they are not hierarchical… they are not Sola Scriptura…etc…
In some ways it seems like about the only thing common across the group is some nomenclature. “Meeting house” instead of Church etc.
Please understand that I do not mean this as an attack. It’s just the sense that I am getting and wanted to ask if I’m off base here.
Peace
James
- Status