Simple Early Days

[benidict]

ralphinal >>> It isn’t in fact the NT is largely in error of the truth and the core problem is the gospels, although the letters and the like are accurate and Revelation should not be in there. My gospel written under the will of God will correct this. For now I suggest read the Jefferson Bible its at least true to His teachings.

XinMinny >>> Jesus was a simple preacher and lived a modest life who happened to be an instrument of God to free us from all Sin. A Son of God and prophet much like we are all blessed with God’s Grace as His Sons and Daughters under the New Covenant.

thanks libertarian! you just made my army day. looking forward to your God inspired translation… peace

 

[chaunceygardner]

“I would like to make the case that Jesus wanted a simple modest expressions of faith”

I have quoted a portion of what Libertarian wrote here. This is the piece that I am really wondering about. I appreciate what Ralph wrote about corruption growing so fast. However, what I think I am noticing is that there is a spirit (I don’t mean the HolySpirit here) or a sense, or an attitude or an overall impression that one gets when reading the gospels that Jesus spoke about simple things easy for people to understand. And, I think that Libertarian is suggesting that Jesus wanted His followers to continue that. Ralph, I would answer your question about the Bible by saying that when I read the New Testament, I notice that the same simple ideas about love, about not letting worship become habit, about understanding inside of ourselves what we really should be; all those simple things are there as well, and that gives me confidence that it is of the same Author.

Just a thought,
Minny

Yes, I would agree with your thesis and your reasoning. We (meaning people as well as institutional churches) have obscured the basic message of the Gospel, and we have added layer upon layer of doctrine, rites, rubrics and laws to a very simple and clear message. And Jesus tells us exactly what it is, but we generally refuse to listen to it.

What does God expect of us? What is essential to our salvation? Jesus clearly says that everything is based on following the first two commandments. Add in the Golden Rule and the teachings from the Beatitudes and I think you have the core of what we need to know and do.

On another thread several months ago I commented on a similar thread and will quote from what I wrote back then:

“We have constructed a huge building around a modest home that was first built 2000 years ago. We have added on to it many times, patched together with various materials and by many workmen over the centuries. In that building there is still a small basement room, simple and unadorned, containing the core of our faith that was given to us by Jesus. But we are so intent on making sure that all the other floors and rooms of this imposing structure meet the “building code”, and on protecting what we have built on top of that simple foundation, that we have lost sight of the building’s original purpose and meaning, when it was just a small, one room house in Palestine.”

 

[ralphinal]

Yes, I would agree with your thesis and your reasoning. We (meaning people as well as institutional churches) have obscured the basic message of the Gospel, and we have added layer upon layer of doctrine, rites, rubrics and laws to a very simple and clear message. And Jesus tells us exactly what it is, but we generally refuse to listen to it.

What does God expect of us? What is essential to our salvation? Jesus clearly says that everything is based on following the first two commandments. Add in the Golden Rule and the teachings from the Beatitudes and I think you have the core of what we need to know and do.

On another thread several months ago I commented on a similar thread and will quote from what I wrote back then:

“We have constructed a huge building around a modest home that was first built 2000 years ago. We have added on to it many times, patched together with various materials and by many workmen over the centuries. In that building there is still a small basement room, simple and unadorned, containing the core of our faith that was given to us by Jesus. But we are so intent on making sure that all the other floors and rooms of this imposing structure meet the “building code”, and on protecting what we have built on top of that simple foundation, that we have lost sight of the building’s original purpose and meaning, when it was just a small, one room house in Palestine.”

So, would you agree with the statement that everything that Jesus said or did is recorded in the Bible?

 

[chaunceygardner]

So, would you agree with the statement that everything that Jesus said or did is recorded in the Bible?

No, of course not, although I would trust the essential stuff is included. There were no stenographers or reporters present, so everything we read is based on recollection and stories passed down orally over decades before they were written down. The authors of the Gospels included what THEY felt was important for their messages. The Gospels are not histories or biographies, they are a record of the evangelization process in the early Church.

 

[XinMinny]

I just want to add concerning whether everything Jesus said is included in the gospels. No, it is not. However, John wrote that “these are written that ye might believe, and that believing ye might have life through his name.” The tenor of that statement suggests to me that nothing that we need in order to have life is left out.
Now, that is obviously my opinion or interpretation. Others are entitled to theirs.

All for now.

Minny

 

[ralphinal]

No, of course not, although I would trust the essential stuff is included. There were no stenographers or reporters present, so everything we read is based on recollection and stories passed down orally over decades before they were written down. The authors of the Gospels included what THEY felt was important for their messages. The Gospels are not histories or biographies, they are a record of the evangelization process in the early Church.

If the authors wrote what they thought was important, is it possible that what Jesus thought was important was left out?

I just want to add concerning whether everything Jesus said is included in the gospels. No, it is not. However, John wrote that “these are written that ye might believe, and that believing ye might have life through his name.” The tenor of that statement suggests to me that nothing that we need in order to have life is left out.
Now, that is obviously my opinion or interpretation. Others are entitled to theirs.

All for now.

Minny

And Paul wrote that we should hold fast to what we are taught, whether it was by word of mouth or by Scripture.

Here is where I am headed with this. How was the faith taught to the Apostles and to those that they taught?

 

[chaunceygardner]

If the authors wrote what they thought was important, is it possible that what Jesus thought was important was left out?

As I responded in the quote you used, we should trust that the essentials are in the Gospels. I would expect that the teachings of Jesus that had the most meaning and greatest impact would be remembered and written down. But there is a possibility that Jesus said something that was important that is not in our Gospels, but could have been recorded elsewhere, or not at all. But again, it seems like the main messages are there. And the fact that we have four approved Gospels that generally agree on the essentials is an indication that we have the core.

And Paul wrote that we should hold fast to what we are taught, whether it was by word of mouth or by Scripture.

Here is where I am headed with this. How was the faith taught to the Apostles and to those that they taught?

Verbally, and there was no one making an immediate written record of what Jesus said, or likely what the Apostles preached at the start of their evangelization.

If one identifies the core messages (truths) that Jesus gave us, some of which were enhancements to or distillation of the commandments in the OT, most of the other teachings, parables, and stories emphasize those core truths. If one reads through the Gospels with that in mind, this can be clearly seen.

And for us, that means we should change our lives (repent) to conform to those same truths, commandments and messages, and apply them in our actions and our words. THAT is the meaning of the Gospel.

 

[ralphinal]

As I responded in the quote you used, we should trust that the essentials are in the Gospels. I would expect that the teachings of Jesus that had the most meaning and greatest impact would be remembered and written down. But there is a possibility that Jesus said something that was important that is not in our Gospels, but could have been recorded elsewhere, or not at all. But again, it seems like the main messages are there. And the fact that we have four approved Gospels that generally agree on the essentials is an indication that we have the core.

What if the Gospels were not meant to convey the core but to insure uniformity in basic understanding? I will explain more in a minute.

Verbally, and there was no one making an immediate written record of what Jesus said, or likely what the Apostles preached at the start of their evangelization.

If one identifies the core messages (truths) that Jesus gave us, some of which were enhancements to or distillation of the commandments in the OT, most of the other teachings, parables, and stories emphasize those core truths. If one reads through the Gospels with that in mind, this can be clearly seen.

And for us, that means we should change our lives (repent) to conform to those same truths, commandments and messages, and apply them in our actions and our words. THAT is the meaning of the Gospel.

Now, let us say for argument’s sake that the model of the early Church is what the Orthodox and Catholics say that it was. In that system, the key faith was taught by word of mouth by men appointed by Jesus as Apostles or by Apostles themselves as time passed. The key part of the faith would be orally taught to those who followed Christ, with the Gospels showing the basic points of the life and reason for Jesus’s death. Now, before we go to far down this path, look at the Epistles from this point of view. They all seem to be expounding upon something that had been previously taught to the people. Very little seems to be new, unless it is to answer a question or handle an issue.

 

[chaunceygardner]

What if the Gospels were not meant to convey the core but to insure uniformity in basic understanding? I will explain more in a minute.

I find that scenario unlikely since they were put into writing at different times by different people, and by the simple fact that they are not uniform in the information they convey. But then I wonder what is the difference between “conveying the core” and “basic understanding”? Aren’t they the same thing?

Now, let us say for argument’s sake that the model of the early Church is what the Orthodox and Catholics say that it was. In that system, the key faith was taught by word of mouth by men appointed by Jesus as Apostles or by Apostles themselves as time passed. The key part of the faith would be orally taught to those who followed Christ, with the Gospels showing the basic points of the life and reason for Jesus’s death. Now, before we go too far down this path, look at the Epistles from this point of view. They all seem to be expounding upon something that had been previously taught to the people. Very little seems to be new, unless it is to answer a question or handle an issue.

Yes, the key parts and everything else was originally taught orally, from Jesus to the Apostles (and other disciples) and then to all the faithful. And yes, the Epistles, many of which were written before the Gospels were recorded, are responding to issues or questions from churches where the Gospel was preached orally. Got that.

But then I am confused as to your last point. Is it that the Epistles complement and expand on the core teachings, or that some of them may have statements that are in opposition to those basic truths? When you say little is “new”, are you saying that they refer to things previously taught by Paul (or others who wrote Epistles), or things taught by Jesus as found in the Gospels? Or what? Please explain.

 

[joe370]

Hi XinMinny, how are you doing? I’m sneaking a break in at work, so I have to make it quick.

Joe,
Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.
I put this up this evening as a new thread, because I am feeling guilty of thread hijack.
I find your thoughts interesting. I have a few questions. Please feel free to post an answer to me directly, or put it in the new thread, which is called, “Simple Early Days.”
My first question for you is: Exactly what is Arian heresy?

To Arius, the Father was seen as the only true (“unbegotten”) - God. To him, God created Jesus Christ, but not of his own divine matter. Arius believed that Jesus was not God and was not divine. Worshiping Christ would be tantamount to worshiping another God, and this specifically went against God’s teaching that He alone should be worshiped.

My impression, and I would admit to not having been schooled in the matter at all, is that the Arian heresy was not a denial that the Father, Son and Spirit are all God. But, rather, that they are all not exactly equal. I need some help to understand that apparently

Perhaps you could google it? If you do, I am certain that you will have a change of heart.

And, just to put in my 2 cents, I think that is a justifiable position. Jesus seemed to defer both his works and his teachings to the Father. And, the Spirit didn’t come until Jesus asked the Father to send the Spirit. So, it seems possible to conclude that the HS is subject to the Father and Son.

Well, that was one of the issues (Fillique) - that divided the CC, which eventually gave way to the CC and the EOC. If one believes that the EOC is the church of Matthew 16, then, no doubt, the filoque will be viewed as an interpolation into the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. However, upon intense scrutiny on the subject, I came to realize that the Catholic Bishops in the east, prior to, and at the time of the split, believed as does the CC, today. The question is, from whom did the Holy Spirit proceed, the Father, or the Father and the Son?

John 14:26 says: *“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name…” *John 15:26 tells us: *“When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, He will testify about me.” *

These passages seem to indicate that the Spirit is sent out by both the Father and the Son. The essential matter in the filioque clause is a desire to protect the deity of the Holy Spirit. After all, it is the HS that is forever guiding Jesus’ church into all truth. The Bible clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit is God.

"Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.” Acts 5:3-4

Those who oppose the filioque clause object because they believe that the Holy Spirit, (proceeding from the Father and the Son) - makes the Holy Spirit “subservient” to the Father and Son. Those who uphold the filioque clause believe that the Holy Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son does not impact the Spirit being equally God with the Father and the Son.

I agree with you regarding the Trinity. It certainly involves an aspect of God that we will never be able to fully grasp. God, who is an infinite being, is ultimately incomprehensible to our finite human minds. The Holy Spirit is God, and He was sent by God, to Jesus’ Church, as Jesus Christ’s “replacement” here on earth. The question of whether the Holy Spirit was sent by the Father, or by the Father and the Son, is a question, no doubt, for the church of Matthew 16, (forever guided by the Holy Spirit, into all truth) - to answer, and they did finally resolve the matter in the 4th century.

I bring this up not for argument at all, but simply to try to understand. And, I might add, if I am correct about Arius, I wonder if that kind of discussion might be ‘unprofitable’ in exactly the way I have been trying to think about. In other words, perhaps the exact description is beyond man/woman, and it is not so important for us to argue about…

I don’t really think it is an issue anymore, but I would definitely think a discussion would be immensely profitable if someone was teaching what Arius taught, today; don’t you think so? I believe it is ineffably beyond the scope of man, and we won’t truly understand it until we are with the eternal Trinity, in Heaven. However, the Holy spirit was sent to Jesus’ Mystical Body, the church, to forever guide her, as the bride of Christ, into all truth. How the HS does this, is yet another ineffable question, beyond the scope of men/women.

Talk to you later…

 

[TedDC]

I think so yes to both. And I agree many have an interest in God and His living work in their hearts and not so much the fine points of rules. I read about Christ and I don’t see Him all that complicated really. But the rules sometimes can be a yolk around a person’s neck. It’s possible to get so wrapped up in every rule and you can miss the bigger picture Christ painted for us.

That was one of the factors in my decision to leave the Church - it just shouldn’t be that complicated. How did we get from the simple message of Jesus to hundreds of pages of Catechism, volumes of canon law, myriad rules dealing with often-trivial details, and layers of hierarchy? Look at how much space on this forum is devoted to questions about minutiae. Is that really what God intended for His Church?

 

[joe370]

Acts 2:42-47

I would like to make the case that Jesus wanted a simple modest expressions of faith and the Apostles failed to be teachers to being leaders of a slowly corrupted Church what would lead to the Roman Catholics. I may support the succession of Peter in theory but what Jesus taught and what evils were done by the RCC proves to me that Satan was quick to defile the Apostles and corrupt the Christian community. Protestants were later no better in most cases.

WOW…But I digress. Don’t want to detract from the OP, for something that is so counterproductive and unrelated.

 

[joe370]

That was one of the factors in my decision to leave the Church - it just shouldn’t be that complicated. How did we get from the simple message of Jesus to hundreds of pages of Catechism, volumes of canon law, myriad rules dealing with often-trivial details, and layers of hierarchy? Look at how much space on this forum is devoted to questions about minutiae. Is that really what God intended for His Church?

Interesting…Ted, did you choose another church based on your belief system, and your interpretation of the bible? My sister did the same thing. It took her about 4 years and 10 churches, before she finally settled for a church founded by Pastor Brown in 1983.

Ted, do you believe that the CC was not founded by God, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, circa AD 33? Exegetically speaking, who or what has the authority to resolve doctrinal differences and interpret scripture, or does that not matter anymore?

Could you give me a list of the essential, simple messages of Jesus, found in the bible, and a list of the non-essential complex messages, found in the bible? If not, then who or what has the authority to settle this matter for you and I? After all, I certainly don’t want to discard the essential complex message of Jesus, for the sake of simplicity - agreed?

You said:

How did we get from the simple message of Jesus to hundreds of pages of Catechism…

I believe that the CCC is nothing more than an accurate exposition of the doctrinal truth, spelled out in the bible, and it is, if in fact the CC is the church of Matthew 16, forever guided by the HS, into all truth, and it’s not, if you don’t believe it. It makes sense to me, when I consider all of the division and disunity out there in the Protestant world today. It helps the Christian, belonging to the CC, to toe the line; this is a good thing, in my humble opinion. This bothers you, but thousands of Protestant churches in the world, riddled with conflicting beliefs, founded by men, **as opposed to God, in the first century, **does not bother you? The CCC was written for this very reason.

…volumes of canon law myriad rules dealing with often-trivial details,

So, no need to refute doctrinal misinformation, especially if it is trivial?

…and layers of hierarchy?

Hierarchy is merely a natural result, when an organization becomes so large that manageability becomes problematic. We see it in every large organization, in the world; it’s a very effective and efficient means of maintaining unity, and we all know what the bible says about maintaining unity and oneness! Hierarchy, which is harmless, was inevitable for the CC, for she was/is/has in fact spread to the ends of the earth. In a small church, such as my sisters church, and no doubt your church, hierarchy is really not necessary. One Pastor; one flock; one town; end of story. What should have happened when thousands of CC’s start popping up all over the place? Should there have been just one Pastor in charge, answering to no one, for each of these churches, all over the world? We sadly see what this has done for the myriad PC’s. If there had been just one reformed church, in the 16th century, following the same model implemented by the CC, as that one reformed church was growing and spreading (excluding sola scriptura via individual interpretation of course) - we would probably see the same unity found in the CC, in that reformed church. For the CC, that would have been a church to be reckoned with. Instead, we see a horribly fractured reformed PC.

 

[joe370]

ralphinal >>> It isn’t in fact the NT is largely in error of the truth and the core problem is the gospels, although the letters and the like are accurate and Revelation should not be in there. My gospel

written under the will of God will correct this. For now I suggest read the Jefferson Bible its at least true to His teachings.

Lib, by whose authority, do you make your authoritative claims?

 

[XinMinny]

Interesting…Ted, did you choose another church based on your belief system, and your interpretation of the bible? My sister did the same thing. It took her about 4 years and 10 churches, before she finally settled for a church founded by Pastor Brown in 1983.

Ted, do you believe that the CC was not founded by God, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, circa AD 33? Exegetically speaking, who or what has the authority to resolve doctrinal differences and interpret scripture, or does that not matter anymore?

Could you give me a list of the essential, simple messages of Jesus, found in the bible, and a list of the non-essential complex messages, found in the bible? If not, then who or what has the authority to settle this matter for you and I? After all, I certainly don’t want to discard the essential complex message of Jesus, for the sake of simplicity - agreed?

Hierarchy is merely a natural result, when an organization becomes so large that manageability becomes problematic. We see it in every large organization, in the world; it’s a very effective and efficient means of maintaining unity, and we all know what the bible says about maintaining unity and oneness! Hierarchy, which is harmless, was inevitable for the CC, for she was/is/has in fact spread to the ends of the earth. In a small church, such as my sisters church, and no doubt your church, hierarchy is really not necessary. One Pastor; one flock; one town; end of story. What should have happened when thousands of CC’s start popping up all over the place? Should there have been just one Pastor in charge, answering to no one, for each of these churches, all over the world? We sadly see what this has done for the myriad PC’s. If there had been just one reformed church, in the 16th century, following the same model implemented by the CC, as that one reformed church was growing and spreading (excluding sola scriptura via individual interpretation of course) - we would probably see the same unity found in the CC, in that reformed church. For the CC, that would have been a church to be reckoned with. Instead, we see a horribly fractured reformed PC.

Joe,
If you don’t mind, maybe I can add my thoughts to your post. And, sorry to answer for the other party in this discussion. I would also like to add a question, just so that I can start to understand correctly your position.

Concerning what is in red above, I do not believe the CC was founded in Jerusalem on Pentecost. I don’t believe Jesus had in mind to found anything that would become an institution. An organization, yes, but not an institution. The reason I believe that is that Jesus spent many days speaking against the institution that had become Judaism at that time. Institutions tend to lose life.

Concerning what is in blue above: Twice the question is asked: “What’s the authority?” My impression of the question is that there is an assumption being made that some authority has to lie in ‘people’ or in ‘someone or something’ here on earth. I don’t think that needs to be the case. The real authority could simply be in Heaven, and the Holy Spirit will help everyone to get what they need, if they really, sincerely ask. The same goes for the idea of a ‘Pastor in charge.’ The real humility of leadership would make a person feel they did want to be ‘in charge.’ Perhaps they would simply feel that they wanted to help another be connected to the Holy Spirit as mentioned above.

And, now, my question: (And, please, this is a question. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. This is not an argument). In Matthew 16, when the Lord spoke about building His church, what do you envision? Do you think he had in mind in that moment the current RCC, with all its hierarchy, sacraments (which are, in one way, rituals or rites), with all its property, etc? I mean, do you picture that He was thinking, “I will use Peter, and I will make this institution. And, it will have great power, even among nations?” I would like to hear what is in your mind. When you put yourself there, what do you think the Lord was thinking?

Thanks. This is a very informative discussion. I am enjoying it, and especially I am enjoying the tone. Very civil. Thank you.

Minny

 

[ralphinal]

I find that scenario unlikely since they were put into writing at different times by different people, and by the simple fact that they are not uniform in the information they convey. But then I wonder what is the difference between “conveying the core” and “basic understanding”? Aren’t they the same thing?

Actually, they are uniform in the information that they convey. However, they were written to different audiences that had different ways of seeing things. One was for Jews, one for Greeks, one was to fill in a few things that only a first hand witness would want added, etc. That is why one focuses on his role as messiah, etc. The basics of the faith and basic understandings may not be the same thing. For example, a basic is that Jesus died on the Cross. There is no way around that. The understanding of why that was needed is a much more complex thing.

Yes, the key parts and everything else was originally taught orally, from Jesus to the Apostles (and other disciples) and then to all the faithful. And yes, the Epistles, many of which were written before the Gospels were recorded, are responding to issues or questions from churches where the Gospel was preached orally. Got that.

But then I am confused as to your last point. Is it that the Epistles complement and expand on the core teachings, or that some of them may have statements that are in opposition to those basic truths? When you say little is “new”, are you saying that they refer to things previously taught by Paul (or others who wrote Epistles), or things taught by Jesus as found in the Gospels? Or what? Please explain.

Nothing in the NT is in opposition to anything else. If we see it as such, we are not reading it correctly. There is nothing new in there apart from what Jesus taught, save situational issues.

For example, it is clear that Jesus teaches that we have a spiritual responsibility to care for our fellow man. In fact, he even ties salvation to it. Now, it would seem like Paul is saying the opposite. Which is it?

 

[chaunceygardner]

And, now, my question: (And, please, this is a question. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. This is not an argument). In Matthew 16, when the Lord spoke about building His church, what do you envision?

The way to the Kingdom of God, a church consisting of anyone who heard the message of Jesus and responded to it. Disciples who would spread that message and the promise of God’s unending love throughout the world.

Do you think he had in mind in that moment the current RCC, with all its hierarchy, sacraments (which are, in one way, rituals or rites), with all its property, etc? I mean, do you picture that He was thinking, “I will use Peter, and I will make this institution. And, it will have great power, even among nations?” I would like to hear what is in your mind. When you put yourself there, what do you think the Lord was thinking?

No and No. That was created and instituted by men, not by God. No temporal power, no suffocating hierarchy or massive bureaucracy. No thousands of pages of rules, doctrines, laws and rituals.

XinMinny, you have it right when you say:

Jesus spent many days speaking against the institution that had become Judaism at that time. Institutions tend to lose life

and

The real authority could simply be in Heaven, and the Holy Spirit will help everyone to get what they need, if they really, sincerely ask.

To answer a post asking to point out the essential and simple messages of Jesus, they are to be found in the passages where He talks about the first two commandments as the key, in his emphasis on the Golden Rule and the importance of faith, and in teachings like the Beatitudes. Almost everything else Jesus teaches and does, whether in parables, stories, preaching, or incidents that occur during His ministry, reinforce those basic ideas.

And the complex, non-essential things, where are they in the Gospels? …let’s see, not there…not there…not there either…So apparently, Jesus focused on what was essential, amazing as that may seem to some.

Yes it was quite simple, and quite clear. We, meaning flawed humanity, have taken the pure message of Jesus and the promise of the Kingdom and inflated it into something that is not even close to resembling the early church.

We have made the church into the very thing that Jesus warned us about! See Matthew 23, Luke 11 and Mark 12 about that. Mark 12 has a wonderful juxtaposition of what is essential vs. what will happen to those “holier than thou” who try to make the journey to the Kingdom of God for others too complex.

I have this feeling that God is not very happy with us right now. He gave us His Son to instruct and lead us, who in turn gave us a simple, direct teaching for attaining salvation, and we have literally forgotten most of it, throwing out the essentials and embracing a caricature of what our faith should be.

 

[XinMinny]

To Arius, the Father was seen as the only true (“unbegotten”) - God. To him, God created Jesus Christ, but not of his own divine matter. Arius believed that Jesus was not God and was not divine. Worshiping Christ would be tantamount to worshiping another God, and this specifically went against God’s teaching that He alone should be worshiped.

Perhaps you could google it? If you do, I am certain that you will have a change of heart.

John 14:26 says: *“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name…” *John 15:26 tells us: *“When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, He will testify about me.” *

These passages seem to indicate that the Spirit is sent out by both the Father and the Son. The essential matter in the filioque clause is a desire to protect the deity of the Holy Spirit. After all, it is the HS that is forever guiding Jesus’ church into all truth. The Bible clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit is God.

*"Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit *and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.” Acts 5:3-4

The question of whether the Holy Spirit was sent by the Father, or by the Father and the Son, is a question, no doubt, for the church of Matthew 16, (forever guided by the Holy Spirit, into all truth) - to answer, and they did finally resolve the matter in the 4th century.

I don’t really think it is an issue anymore, but I would definitely think a discussion would be immensely profitable if someone was teaching what Arius taught, today; don’t you think so? I believe it is ineffably beyond the scope of man, and we won’t truly understand it until we are with the eternal Trinity, in Heaven. However, the Holy spirit was sent to Jesus’ Mystical Body, the church, to forever guide her, as the bride of Christ, into all truth. How the HS does this, is yet another ineffable question, beyond the scope of men/women.

Talk to you later…

Joe,
Thanks for adding your thoughts to the discussion. Do you mind if I comment a bit so you can see where I am coming from?

I don’t want to take the room to quote the ‘filioque’ clause, but my feeling is that that particular is such a tiny point that I don’t think John, James, Andrew etc would bother with it. I think they would say, “He promised us the Spirit, and the Spirit is helping us, and we don’t need to know that exactly.” and, then, maybe they would say, “Please don’t argue about it any more.”

As for the question of whether the HS is God (and, before I write the next, I want to clarify something. The HS is clearly more powerful than any other power that we will ever contact.) now for my comment]. The portion is Acts 5 can be read you have quoted it, to logically prove the HS is God. However, it could also be read in the way to say that Ananias lied to the HS, and also lied to God. Again, no argument here, just pointing out another way to see it.

Obviously, Joe, you are a strong Catholic, and I want to respect your own private feelings. I merely want to show my thoughts, and where they come from.

All for now,
Minny

 

[joe370]

Joe,

Thanks for adding your thoughts to the discussion. Do you mind if I comment a bit so you can see where I am coming from?

Never!

I don’t want to take the room to quote the ‘filioque’ clause, but my feeling is that that particular is such a tiny point that I don’t think John, James, Andrew etc would bother with it. I think they would say, “He promised us the Spirit, and the Spirit is helping us, and we don’t need to know that exactly.” and, then, maybe they would say, “Please don’t argue about it any more.”

Agreed! The church really didn’t divide over the fillique in my opinion. It was sadly, politically motivated. To sum up: Photius of Constantinople (in the east) - denounced it in the ninth century, and it formed the main doctrinal issue in the rupture between East and West in 1054, but I believe the rupture had political overtones, due to the emperor in the east, but that is just my opinion. The Byzantine emperor Michael III removed Ignatius I as patriarch of Constantinople. The emperor then replaced him with a layman, Photius, who was the first Imperial secretary. However, Ignatius refused to bow to secular authority. The emperor Michael and Photius proceeded to invite Pope Nicholas I of Rome to send legates to preside over a synod in Constantinople to settle the matter. In opposition to the removal of Ignatius, the bishop of Rome supported Ignatius as the legitimate patriarch, and the rest is history. A very sad epoch in Christian history. It’s really easy for us, today, to monday morning quarterback, but who knows what we might do in that particular situation, considering all of the dynamics of that time period. Things are so different now.

As for the question of whether the HS is God (and, before I write the next, I want to clarify something. The HS is clearly more powerful than any other power that we will ever contact.) now for my comment]. The portion is Acts 5 can be read you have quoted it, to logically prove the HS is God. However, it could also be read in the way to say that Ananias lied to the HS, and also

lied to God. Again, no argument here, just pointing out another way to see it.

Agreed!

Obviously, Joe, you are a strong Catholic

Minny, it didn’t start out that way; trust me.

…and I want to respect your own private feelings. I merely want to show my thoughts, and where they come from.

The fact that the EOC and CC remain divided over the fillique, seems really sad to me. But the fact that all of the protestant churches remain divided, due to the man-made dogma, sola scriptura, seems even more sad to me. I could start my own church tomorrow and insist that all one has to do is love and worship God, and all the rest is extraneous, but my feeling is that that particular act would be such a major point of contention to the apostles, that I do indeed think that John, James, Andrew etc would be terribly bothered with it, but again, thanks to the protestant dogma, SS, that has snowballed into the endless division that we see today, in the protestant churches, John, James, Andrew etc. - would be powerless to stop it. The EOC and the CC however, still have a shot at reconciliation, IMHO.

So, to recap, I really don’t think that the fillique was the cause of the schism. There were many other variables that factored into the equation, that the Apostles did not have to contend with, and no doubt, would have handled the problem much better, due to their vantage point, just as they would have handled the Protestant reformation much better, but I don’t think the answer is, leaving the church founded by Jesus Christ, on Pentecost, in the 1st century in favor of a church founded by mere men in the 16th, 17th…21st century. The Holy spirit, Who is clearly more powerful than any other power that we will ever contact, can’t possibly be expected to guide the church founded by God, and each respective church founded by man (heading in different directions, doctrinally speaking) - into all truth, right, or wrong? After all, the HS was sent to just one church, in the 1st century, as opposed to hundreds of churches in the 16th, 17th…21st century, never to impugn the work, love and charity of all these other churches, of course.

 

[joe370]

Hi Minny…

Joe,

If you don’t mind, maybe I can add my thoughts to your post. And, sorry to answer for the other party in this discussion. I would also like to add a question, just so that I can start to understand correctly your position.

I respect that. I do not believe however, that any of the PC’s were founded in Jerusalem on Pentecost either, for I can give you the name of the man who instituted each of these churches, and when. Perhaps you could tell me who instituted the CC, and when? That would certainly resolve the matter.

Concerning what is in blue above: Twice the question is asked: “What’s the authority?” My impression of the question is that there is an assumption being made that some authority has to lie in ‘people’ or in ‘someone or something’ here on earth.

Ultimately it is the HS Who has the final authority, for the HS is the divine Rudder forever guiding Jesus church into all truth. John 14:16; John 16:13 However, Jesus did in fact say to people (His church leaders in His stead):

*“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, *baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

“But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

I don’t think that needs to be the case. The real authority could simply be in Heaven, and the Holy Spirit will help everyone to get what they need, if

they really, sincerely ask.

The real authority is in heaven, of course. But Jesus left us with a church, (not churches) - and told His church to teach and be witnesses to the world, regarding everything He taught, to the very ends of the earth, and we can trust these fallible sinners, only because the HS is forever present in Jesus’ church, guiding her into all truth, as opposed to partial truths, or conflicting truths.

The same goes for the idea of a ‘Pastor in charge.’ The real humility of leadership would make a person feel they did want to be ‘in charge.’ Perhaps they would simply feel that they wanted to help another be connected to the Holy Spirit as mentioned above.

Of course humility is vital, just as doctrinal truth is vital for our salvation, especially the following doctrine. My former Lutheran Pastor taught that Jesus was speaking in metaphor, regarding the Eucharist, and a Lutheran friend of mine here at CAF, tells me that his Pastor teaches just the opposite. Are both Pastors helping people connect to the Holy Spirit? One could simply say that it simply doesn’t matter, but the bible would disagree.

And, now, my question: (And, please, this is a question. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. This is not

an argument). In Matthew 16, when the Lord spoke about building His church, what do you envision? Do you think he had in mind in that moment the current RCC, with all its hierarchy, sacraments (which are, in one way, rituals or rites), with all its property, etc?

Hard to really know what God envisioned, if you know what I mean. As far as sacraments go, they are nothing more than an outward sign of an inward grace, and they are very biblical. Baptism by water for example. As far as the RCC, I think it was really, poetic justice that Jesus would supplant the Roman Empire, (which was persecuting Jesus’ Mystical Body, the Church, on and off, for hundreds of years) - with His Mystical Body, the Church - don’t you think? But, let’s assume you are right and the CC is not the church of Matthew 16.

Let me ask you the same question if you don’t mind: In Matthew 16, when the Lord spoke about building His church, what do you envision? Do you think he had in mind in that moment, the current PC’s of the 16th, 17th…21st century, with all its division, disunity, the man-made dogma, sola scriptura, as well as the hierarchy and sacraments embraced by many PC’s (which are, in one way, rituals or rites), with all its property, etc?

Minny, if the church of Matthew 16 is not the CC, as you believe, and the church of Matthew 16 is not any of the PC’s, as I believe, then where is the church of Matthew 16, in the world today? We know it has to still be here.

Continued…

[/QUOTE]