Ignorance and pride are worse when mixed together

[Radical]

So I’m finally getting round to replying. I apologize for the lengthy delay.

no need to apologize

Do you believe that any theological lines in the sand exist delineating “Christian” from “non-Christian”?

yes, but I don’t view it as being a straightforward thing. Note how Paul put it (being a child of God) in Romans (NIV):
So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.
A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.

Jews were few in number in comparison to Christians today. Although not monolithic, their doctrinal differences were much fewer than found in Christians today. Nevertheless, according to Paul, identifying the true Jew in his day was not a straightforward thing….one had to be able to detect a circumcision of the heart.

How would you regard the status of a Muslim, who considers Jesus to be a human prophet?

as a Muslim

Have you considered founding your own church?

no, never

If all other Christians are in error to one degree or another, it would seem incumbent upon someone with the truth to correct them.

again I look to Paul’s words (NIV):
For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
An apostle only saw a blurred reflection and only knew in part, but I wouldn’t have dreamt of separating from Paul and starting a new church. I expect error in myself and others. IMHO there is a serious problem when humans (fallible all) claim to have been endowed with infallibility…it causes them to require others to follow any error that they have (unknowingly) produced

I believe that Jehovah’s Witnesses will claim that the doctrine of the trinity is a man-made innovation from the fourth century.

the details of it are man-made. First, attributing a “substance” to the Father is from Greek philosophy. Claiming that the Son and the Father are of the same substance is not something that was taught at the start, it is a later addition….an addition that appears after Greek philosophy has been thrown into the mix

I’ve heard one Muslim apologist, in a debate on the trinity, call for the discarding of Greek philosophy as a hindrance to attaining the truth.

the Greeks were incredibly advanced and contributed greatly with their philosophy, but it isn’t as if they achieved perfect insight 2000 years ago….one or two advances have been made in those 2000 years .Why stick with Greek philosophy?

The same principles by which you go after one doctrine have the potential to undermine another.

well, if it rests on out dated Greek philosophy, perhaps undermining it isn’t such a bad thing. What exactly is your position? The ancient councils were infallible in your opinion. They used Greek philosophy to expound doctrine and so the parts of Greek philosophy that they used were divinely inspired/astoundingly correct….is that how it worked (in your view)?

After all, Matthew and Luke could have made Jesus into a demigod figure between the date of the resurrection and the time of writing, for which the textbook for a course on the New Testament I took last year essentially argued.

that isn’t an unreasonable conclusion, based on the evidence. Another reasonable conclusion is that Christians viewed Christ as being divine from the resurrection on. What I think is considerably less likely is the possibility that Christians had a Trinitarian understanding from the outset.

The hypostatic union could be an innovation, but we just don’t have documentary evidence showing the true original teaching.

or that an original, apostolic teaching existed on that matter

 

[Radical]

How come?

Everett Ferguson wrote what (I believe) would be considered the “Bible” on the history of baptism in the early Church. It is his conclusion is that baptism was only for believers at the start…not infants (and I agree). The book is under 1000 pages and the section dealing with the origin of infant baptism is found at pages 362-379….(though it helps to have read the preceding 361 pages).

I was employing the term with a specific definition: “reading Scripture to come up with the true faith on one’s own (or with the aid of commentaries)”.

I think such is a caricature of what the Reformers did…Show me a Reformer who did not seek the counsel of others for the purpose of understanding doctrine….no one sought to come up with the “true faith on one’s own”.

Why do you suggest this?

you claimed that the idea of the invisible church arose in the 16th century, but the author of 2nd Clement wrote:
So, then, brethren, if we do the will of our Father God, we shall be members of the first church, the spiritual,–that which was created before sun and moon; but if we shall not do the will of the Lord, we shall come under the Scripture which saith, “My house became a den of robbers.” So, then, let us elect to belong to the church of life, that we may be saved. I think not that ye are ignorant that the living church is the body of Christ (for the Scripture, saith, “God created man male and female;” the male is Christ, the female the church,) and that the Books and the Apostles teach that the church is not of the present, but from the beginning. For it was spiritual, as was also our Jesus, and was made manifest at the end of the days in order to save us.
As such, that author envisioned a spiritual church existing before the sun and moon…wouldn’t that be an invisible church…and what about what I quoted from Paul earlier? Paul envisioned a visible “children of Abraham” and an invisible/spiritual true “children of Abraham”….are you telling me that Christians lost the obvious parallel and didn’t regain it until the Reformers came along?

 

[onemangang]

you claimed that the idea of the invisible church arose in the 16th century, but the author of 2nd Clement wrote:
So, then, brethren, if we do the will of our Father God, we shall be members of the first church, the spiritual,–that which was created before sun and moon; but if we shall not do the will of the Lord, we shall come under the Scripture which saith, “My house became a den of robbers.” So, then, let us elect to belong to the church of life, that we may be saved. I think not that ye are ignorant that the living church is the body of Christ (for the Scripture, saith, “God created man male and female;” the male is Christ, the female the church,) and that the Books and the Apostles teach that the church is not of the present, but from the beginning. For it was spiritual, as was also our Jesus, and was made manifest at the end of the days in order to save us.

As such, that author envisioned a spiritual church existing before the sun and moon…wouldn’t that be an invisible church…and what about what I quoted from Paul earlier? Paul envisioned a visible “children of Abraham” and an invisible/spiritual true “children of Abraham”….are you telling me that Christians lost the obvious parallel and didn’t regain it until the Reformers came along?

Sure the first church, was spiritual, that which was created before sun and moon! The Angels that worship God are spirit; ie invisible!

Were there any others to worship and adore God other than Angels who are (invisible) Spirit prior to visible material Creation?

Clement talks a lot about doing and nothing here about Sola Fide, btw!

He then goes on to talk about the Church being the Body of Christ, was Christ not God incarnate physically here on Earth?

Male and Female seem like physical beings to me as well!

How does this help the invisible Church position?

“** the Books and the Apostles teach that the church is not of the present, but from the beginning. For it was spiritual, as was also our Jesus, and was made manifest at the end of the days in order to save us”**

In the beginning the Church before the sun and moon were invisible, being that it was spiritual angels, and so was Christ as part of the Godhead, but He became flesh and dwelt among us. He manifest in the physical and so did the Church Millitant.

Did you not read what Clement said? Here it is again incase you missed it

"For it was spiritual, as was also our Jesus, and was made manifest"

Why you would use this quote to try to make a point is beyond me, you did just the opposite. Thanks

 

[Radical]

Did you not read what Clement said? Here it is again incase you missed it

"For it was spiritual, as was also our Jesus, and was made manifest"

Why you would use this quote to try to make a point is beyond me, you did just the opposite. Thanks

well, since it is beyond you, I’ll ask a few questions and maybe the light will come on for you…

From “Clement’s” comments do you believe that he thought that Jesus ceased to have a spiritual/invisble aspect once he was made manifest here on earth?

From “Clement’s” comments do you believe that he thought that the Church ceased to have a spiritual/invisble aspect once it was made manifest here on earth?

Were there any others to worship and adore God other than Angels who are (invisible) Spirit prior to visible material Creation?

are there any non-angels at this time who worship and adore God and who are not part of the visible material Creation but are still part of the body of Christ? …say the apostles perhaps?

Clement talks a lot about doing and nothing here about Sola Fide, btw!

if you are making a list of things of things Clement doesn’t mention, you should note that like all the other fathers of that time he makes no mention of Mary serving any continuing purpose in anyone’s salvation…

Male and Female seem like physical beings to me as well!

do you think that the Church is literally female? were the apostles male? were the apostles physical and also spiritual in nature? are the apostles still male? still physical and spiritual in nature?

In the beginning the Church before the sun and moon were invisible, being that it was spiritual angels, and so was Christ as part of the Godhead, but He became flesh and dwelt among us. He manifest in the physical and so did the Church Millitant.

and both maintained a spiritual aspect that is not part of the visible material world…

 

[onemangang]

well, since it is beyond you, I’ll ask a few questions and maybe the light will come on for you…

Good, I look forward to your illumination

From “Clement’s” comments do you believe that he thought that Jesus ceased to have a spiritual/invisble aspect once he was made manifest here on earth?

No, I do not, and that is not a Catholic teaching. The Church is both body and soul, human and divine. I just don’t throw out her visible dimension!

From “Clement’s” comments do you believe that he thought that the Church ceased to have a spiritual/invisble aspect once it was made manifest here on earth?

No, I do not, as stated above she is also visible!

are there any non-angels at this time who worship and adore God and who are not part of the visible material Creation but are still part of the body of Christ? …say the apostles perhaps?

The Apostles were visible in the Church Militant, and now are part of the Church Triumphant!

if you are making a list of things of things Clement doesn’t mention, you should note that like all the other fathers of that time he makes no mention of Mary serving any continuing purpose in anyone’s salvation…

The Church IS and needs no apologia. You are the one in protest, not me!

do you think that the Church is literally female? were the apostles male? were the apostles physical and also spiritual in nature? are the apostles still male? still physical and spiritual in nature?

Since the Church is called the Bride of Christ, and is referred as She, it points to a deeper reality, but since you are the enlightened one here, you must already know this!

and both maintained a spiritual aspect that is not part of the visible material world…

I never denied the Church has a Spiritual aspect, it was you who claim She is not visible.
Thanks for the Clement quote, good to see people in protest, post Catholic Truth and proceed to butcher it, to fit their theology!

 

[stewstew03]

Good, I look forward to your illumination :thumbsup

Me too. [more emoticon popcorn-eating…]

 

[onemangang]

Me too. [more emoticon popcorn-eating…]

Don’t hold your breath, since he is not here to give a response, I will link a quote from the guy he often sites. Everett Ferguson, page 205 in his book The church of Christ: a biblical ecclesiology for today.

books.google.com/books?id=kVqRaiPlx88C&pg=PA205&lpg=PA205&dq=Everett+Ferguson+visible+church&source=bl&ots=OcWt1-Coxs&sig=Bj6ey7PHIeWUemGsz770-qnctmQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=74ltT4ztBoWGiQKD4Py8BQ&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

While I was in the process of reverting back to the Catholic faith from non-denominational evangelicalism, I did not believe in (understand really) one of the Catholic tenets of faith, so my non-denominational friends told me, I should just start my own “church.” If starting your own “church” is not prideful, then I don’t know what is. Typical view when the “church” is void of visibility!