How or why?

[cooterhein]

The natural course of all things in the universe is to move toward entropy.

Entropy is defined as a deterioration of a system. It is a measure of disorder or randomness.

What you describe above is not a positive thing, cooterhein.

Decentralization of power is not a sufficient cause of entropy. The same assumption can and has been made in pro-monarchy arguments. I say yes decentralization is happening, but I also say no, there’s not disorder and randomness to the extent that you could call it entropy. We recognize the potential for this and are taking measures against it. That’s the main role of the Evangelical Theological Society and the entire Evangelical movement in general- help shepherd Christianity into a more decentralized way of operating without causing Christianity to deteriorate doctrinally or fall into randomness, disorder, confusion, madness, etc.

We’re doing this because we believe God never created a certain kind of church governance for Christians to have, so with that in mind, we’ve decided that a less centralized way is better. (It actually is. If you don’t assume that God put a certain system in place, you’d be fighting a losing battle if you wanted to support the Catholic system on its merits alone). We actually don’t think this is necessarily the best thing that could possibly be done or the best thing that ever will be done, though. We’re just trying to do the best that we can at this point in time and under these circumstances. We don’t claim to be perfect, but we’re trying to go with the best options when they’re judged on their merits. Broadly speaking, trying to put all of Christianity under the rule of one man is not regarded as the best option available. (Not the harshest criticism of Catholicism that you’ll ever see, but I think it’s more indicative of the overall trend).

Generally, one of the chief marks of entropy is that a system is slowly falling apart. This is not happening where you say it should be happening. Speaking about as broadly as possible, the group that identifies as “born-again” is right near the top of the “growth leaderboard,” gaining a little over 5% each year. This compares to Catholicism’s just-over-1% rate of growth, which is positive growth, but not enough to keep up with the world’s rising population and avoid losing percentage points.

The things that are happening within and between these systems do not seem to be indicative of entropy on our end. To the contrary, it looks like non-Catholics in the West are going to play an ever greater role in the history of worldwide Christianity for the rest of our lives and continue doing so once we’re all gone. Dramatic sustainable growth is generally antithetical to your kind of entropy thesis. Unless it’s more of a prediction? Are you saying we will fall apart, even if it doesn’t look like we will right now? If so, I wouldn’t bet against us. There’s at least two reasons for that.

Of course, you could account for all of this by comparing us to a retrovirus that is quickly spreading through Christianity with the intent of killing the host. But if you did that, I wouldn’t take it seriously and wouldn’t think it was coming from a good place.

By the way, PR, I made a poll that has to do with non-Catholic traditions and such. Did you vote in it yet?

 

[PRmerger]

Decentralization of power is not a sufficient cause of entropy.

Ok. But I don’t believe I was addressing the cause of entropy. I was arguing that a “natural course of events” is not necessarily a good thing. The example I gave was entropy, which, while a “natural course”, is a deterioration of a system.

What you described as the “natural course” of Christianity, as if it were a blessing, is simply entropy.

I do not find deterioration and disorder to be a good.

 

[cooterhein]

I don’t understand the necessity of seminary, (in your paradigm), if the Holy Spirit is providing the guidance.

You have the Bible. You have the Holy Spirit. Why go to seminary?

The Holy Spirit doesn’t protect anyone from error, and I don’t think you should expect Him to put things into your mind that aren’t there. So you go to seminary in order to learn how to put those things into your mind, get a lot of them there, and give the Holy Spirit something to work with. You also go in order to learn how to avoid error, because you do bear that responsibility.

Those are the main reasons. Broadly speaking.

 

[PRmerger]

The Holy Spirit doesn’t protect anyone from error,

REALLY???

And what errors do you believe are proclaimed by Matthew in his Gospel? What about Mark and Luke and John? And Paul and Peter?

 

[Nicea325]

Thank you for sharing that! You mentioned that you are employed by the Catholic Church in some way, so I thought some of the initiation of ecumenical dialogue and/or shared (albeit limited) activities might involve you in a direct kind of way. It’s one thing to interact on a forum, but there’s more obstacles to overcome when you’re actually doing something in person. Thank you very much for telling me about how you approach them.

Well we work with the United Methodist Church here in the city I live. We have a food pantry and hand out brown bags every Wednesday to the greater community who are less fortunate. Likewise,my local parish works with about 11 other non-Catholic communities in the fight against abortion. It is really nice to meet other Christians sharing and expressing the same concerns.

 

[cooterhein]

Ok. But I don’t believe I was addressing the cause of entropy. I was arguing that a “natural course of events” is not necessarily a good thing. The example I gave was entropy, which, while a “natural course”, is a deterioration of a system.

What you described as the “natural course” of Christianity, as if it were a blessing, is simply entropy.

I do not find deterioration and disorder to be a good.

I guess I was incomplete in my description of why it becomes the natural course. When a large number of Christians in different parts of the world are trying to do the best possible things for the Body of Christ, this is the natural outcome when they’re successful. Christians who very much want to serve Christ will naturally organize themselves in a manner that is, as far as what’s available, the most just and the most effective. I’ll admit that I’m thinking in economic terms roughly similar to what constitutes the Invisible Hand and the idea that a system in which people can work in their own best interest winds up being beneficial to everyone else. It’s informed by the general idea that the government which governs best governs least, and its main role should be that of preventing the whole system from falling into what you described- entropy. Naturally, someone who works from this perspective will give highly centralized authority low marks for quality and value.

 

[PRmerger]

Generally, one of the chief marks of entropy is that a system is slowly falling apart. This is not happening where you say it should be happening.

Oh, but it is, cooterhein. :sad_yes:

Now, thanks to the Protestant Deformation , there are millions of Christians who don’t know whether–

-baptism saves? Or does it just get you wet? Is it a sacrament? Or an ordinance? Do you immediately baptize infants? Or wait until the age of reason? Or must one be an adult? Do you sprinkle? Or immerse? Is it done in the Trinitarian formula or in Jesus’ name only?

-one is OSAS, or one can lose his salvation?

-will we be raptured?

-Sunday is the day of the Lord? Or is it Saturday?



Christ wants unity. Christ wants Truth. Not chaos and confusion.

 

[cooterhein]

REALLY???

And what errors do you believe are proclaimed by Matthew in his Gospel? What about Mark and Luke and John? And Paul and Peter?

Emphasis on the present tense. Of course God HAS protected people from error. In the course of creating an autograph of Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

By the way, PR, I made a poll that has to do with non-Catholic traditions and such. Did you vote in it yet?

Just checked it out. I didn’t vote because I have no idea.

Your poll segues rather nicely with some other threads in which we’ve been in dialogue, including this one. With tens of thousands of different Christian denominations, it’s rather impossible to say what any non-Catholic Christian will believe.

I think I read here that there are 53 different “flavors” of Lutheranism just in the US alone.

Thus, how could anyone pin down what any Protestant is going to believe?

 

[PRmerger]

Emphasis on the present tense. Of course God HAS protected people from error. In the course of creating an autograph of Scripture.

What you are saying is the fruit of divorcing oneself from the faith as proclaimed by the Apostles.

The paradigm you proclaim above is not found in Scripture, and comes from…I don’t know where.

Where in the world would anyone get the idea that the Holy Spirit protected *some *people from error, (in the first decades of Christianity??) but then stopped. Why?

***And how does one know this? ***

 

[jericho777]

**The bottom line - *again ***- is that the Judaizers did not act on behalf of the Church. THAT’S what the test says.

You are imposing your own presupposition where they do not exist in Scripture.

**For a Sola Scripturist, you sure don’t **adhere to it very closely. Scripture alone, right?

The Judaizers reflected what the church was teaching otherwise there would be no need to convene the council at Jerusalem. Remember the Pharisee believers were supporting this doctrine. See Acts 15:5

PS the reason we were discussing Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem was because pablope was claiming Paul only preached the gospel after he went to Jerusalem to get approval from the church not before. I countered with immediately after his conversion he preaches the gospel Acts 9:19-20 Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. 20At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God.

 

[cooterhein]

Oh, but it is, cooterhein. :sad_yes:

Now, thanks to the Protestant Deformation , there are millions of Christians who don’t know whether–

-baptism saves? Or does it just get you wet? Is it a sacrament? Or an ordinance? Do you immediately baptize infants? Or wait until the age of reason? Or must one be an adult? Do you sprinkle? Or immerse? Is it done in the Trinitarian formula or in Jesus’ name only?

-one is OSAS, or one can lose his salvation?

-will we be raptured?

-Sunday is the day of the Lord? Or is it Saturday?



Christ wants unity. Christ wants Truth. Not chaos and confusion.

I don’t accept the assertion that we’re in chaos and confusion. Our results speak of something more successful, and a more libertarian approach is to be expected when authority is decentralized. We’re doing our best to make sure appropriate limits are in place so core doctrine doesn’t get compromised, and while it hasn’t been entirely perfect (though it has very little to do with the things you’re pointing out), our work speaks for itself, and so do the results.

I actually am pretty familiar with what we’re doing and the challenges we are facing. I know the issues that we need to work on and the things we still need to do in order to keep doing what we’re doing. If you were pointing out those kinds of things, I’d acknowledge that you raised an issue of substance that we really need to work through. I think that’s what you’re trying to do…either that, or you’re trying to build a case for an Achille’s heel that will be our downfall and at the same time send all Christians running back to Holy Mother Church. Either way, I don’t think you’re producing much that’s convincing or substantial.

This is what it’s kind of like. I’m a Bears fan. One of my roommates is a Packers fan. We’ll talk about football for hours at a time sometimes. Even though we support rival teams in the same division, it’s still a lot of fun to share football knowledge with each other and just analyze football to death. We don’t do it because we want to prove that one team is better than another. We do it because we’re fans of the game, and we like knowing more about it and why things happen the way they do. It’s especially interesting this year because the entire season has been really unique.

If you were (by way of analogy) pointing out things like a weak o-line for the Bears and how it compares to the Patriots’ incredible o-line, or if you were breaking down the Bears’ cover 2 defense and the holes they have due to lack of personnel and the way a specific opponent could take advantage of it, or if you were talking about the Mike Martz offense and the way it matches up with a particular defense and the coaching strategy of an opposing coach…

If you were giving meaningful analysis that was more predictive in nature and useful for analysis of why certain things happen, you’d be doing something of value.

As it is, though, you’re like the Packers fan who can’t have productive conversations with Bears fans. It happens because you approach the situation as one who must demonstrate that your team is great and there are so many reasons that the other team is bad. You like your team and you want to justify that. You dislike the other team and you want to justify that. So that’s what you try to do.

At a certain level, I think everyone has preferences and biases that shape their approach. But some people just throw themselves into that and wind up thinking it’s perfectly normal for Packers fans and Bears fans to have trouble talking to each other. Others try to keep those things under control, though, and they’ll look to fans of the other team for perspective that might actually give them something of value.

That can’t happen unless both people have that mindset, though. And I’m not sure you have the kind of mindset that allows me to thoroughly enjoy talking about football with my roommate. If I based my conclusion on this kind of response, I’d probably think you were the other kind of fan.

Help me decide, PR. What’s the purpose of the post I’m responding to? What are you trying to do?

 

[cooterhein]

What you are saying is the fruit of divorcing oneself from the faith as proclaimed by the Apostles.

The paradigm you proclaim above is not found in Scripture, and comes from…I don’t know where.

Where in the world would anyone get the idea that the Holy Spirit protected *some *people from error, (in the first decades of Christianity??) but then stopped. Why?

***And how does one know this? ***

See previous post.

 

[jericho777]

Jericho…you are arguing your protestant perspective on the laying of hands. First, keep in your thoughts that the Bible was written and compiled by Catholics, whether you like it or not, and it was intended for use by Catholics, and will be, or should be understood the way it was meant to be by the RCC.

Laying of hands…this is the method of ordination into the priesthood carried on to this day…i think carried on from Judaism…so Paul is laid hands on…not to empower him with God or the HS…for he is already empowered by the HS with his direct revelation…but to ordain him in the priesthood of Christ…as understood by the Apostles…hence, he has apostolic succession. And this is his humility and respect for authority.

Keep in your thought too, St Paul did not establish his own separate church, but established churches in union with the Peter and the Apostles. He reported back to them the progress he was making…in other words…here is accountability.

Do you see a separate Gospel of Paul or Church of Paul, that is apart from the RCC?

Actually, I think you just contradicted yourself. You are saying or trying to argue your point of view on the laying of hands from your perspective, which unwittingly, is your tradition. You are not letting the text dictate the meaning, you are (name removed by moderator)utting what you want it to mean,or what you were told what it meant. And you are doing the same thing with Gal 2:2.

According to Paul’s own words in scripture he was never ordained by men only God. Gal1:1 Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead. It was God only who ordained Paul.

The bible is the word of God to all believers whether you may like it or not.

Paul was adamantly teaching salvation apart from the works of the law and the council at Jerusalem did not have that doctrine.

Laying on of hands can be for ordination or the healing of the sick or to impart the Holy spirit on believers for a task.

As I have said I have no preconceived doctrines to protect or defend.

 

[fbl9]

If the truth is subject to error can it still be the truth?

Engine rebuilding 101
Cooterhien came to me saying his motor was in need of rebuilding.Itell him which parts to replace and which ones can be reused.I tell him to tighten the main caps to 80ftlbs, the rod caps i tell to tighten not as much as the main caps. I tell cooterhien to tighten the head bolts to 65ftlbs but tighten them in a sequence but do not give him the proper sequence.When he is all done he fires it up and it runs smoothly.But because he tightened the head bolts in an incorect sequence he has warped the heads and it leaks anti-freeze.

Others use the instructions i gave cooterhien to rebuild thier motors.I give these people the correct sequence for tightening the head bolts.But still do not give the correct torque for the rod bolts. Some tightened their rod bolts too much and others not enough. Becuase they have tightened the bolts to tight the engine seizes up over time. Those that didn’t make their bolts tight enough find when they apply the engine it fragments.

Did i give cootherhien truthful instructions? Did i give the others truthful instructions?

Hi cooterhein it’s the third chapter of St.Pual’s first epistle to the Corithians.

BTW did you read this.To me this is how i understand what you claim to be guidence of the Holy Spirit.

Thanks PRmerger,
cooterhien, take a little note here, while me and PR a not even from the saame country our beleifs are the same. You may get lucky and have somone from your own congregation to have the same beleifs as you, let alone some one from a different country.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t accept the assertion that we’re in chaos and confusion.

Ok. Then why are there dozens and dozens of teachings–some downright contradictory-- just on baptism?

Our results speak of something more successful, and a more libertarian approach is to be expected when authority is decentralized.

That’s a euphemism for saying Truth doesn’t matter.

We’re doing our best to make sure appropriate limits are in place so core doctrine

Ah, I love it when it gets to this discussion on “core doctrine.”

You folks can’t even decide what’s supposed to be a “core doctrine”, let alone what the doctrines profess.

And who decides on what these “core doctrines” are?

Finally, what, in your opinion, are these “core doctrines”? And will the other tens of thousands of Christian denominations agree with you?

 

[PRmerger]

See previous post.

I apologize for being obtuse. I don’t understand.

Where did the idea come from that the Holy Spirit preserved some folks (just in the first century?) from proclaiming error, but that this charism ended at some point in history.

I couldn’t find that in the Bible.

Nor in tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

This is what it’s kind of like. I’m a Bears fan. One of my roommates is a Packers fan. We’ll talk about football for hours at a time sometimes.

Sorry, I don’t do sports analogies. :yawn:

 

[PRmerger]

According to Paul’s own words in scripture he was never ordained by men only God. Gal1:1 Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead. It was God only who ordained Paul.

How was it that God ordained Paul, jericho?

 

[elvisman]

The Judaizers reflected what the church was teaching otherwise there would be no need to convene the council at Jerusalem. Remember the Pharisee believers were supporting this doctrine. See Acts 15:5.

If you think that the Pharisees represented the Church - you have MUCH to learn about the Early Church. They were not even part of the Church. They were the ones persecuting the Church. Where do you get your information?

As for the Judaizers - they falsely represented the Church. That’s why the Apostles said that they had no mandate from them. The Early Church was not comprised solely of Judaizers, my ill-informed friend. They were a faction.

PS the reason we were discussing Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem was because pablope was claiming Paul only preached the gospel after he went to Jerusalem to get approval from the church not before. I countered with immediately after his conversion he preaches the gospel Acts 9:19-20 Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. 20At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God.

Well, I never said that so there’s no need to keep bringing it up.
The main point of this discussion is Paul’s bowing to Church Authority - and I have presented ample evidence that he did. Acts 15:1-3, 1 Tim. 3:15 and Eph. 1:22-23 are prime examples of this.

The fact that he said he got no mandate from a man does not mean that he didn’t acquiesce to the Church’s Authority. The Church is not a man, nor is it a man-made institution. It is the mystical Body of Christ.