Simple Early Days

[Radical]

Interesting. You were speaking of additions to the original beliefs of the Church. …consider the difference between Amish who are pacifists and believe it a sin to use violence, even in self-defense, and their Mennonite brothers who don’t hold to such a strict interpretation of Christ’s words to turn the other cheek. What such a Mennonite might consider an addition, an Amish might consider an original doctrine. To not be a pacifist, such an Amish person might say, is to make a subtraction!

Agreed. Such differences in interpretation have led to a lot of splits.

However, this addition or subtraction (depending on one’s point of view) is not necessarily a significant one. A Mennonite and an Amish person might debate this difference in belief, but still not divide over it.

Agreed again…there is in fact a very strong history of cooperation amongst Mennonite sects for things such as disaster relief, even though they have split from one another. Here is the situation (the way I see it):
** The Problem**

Everyone (me too, of course) will naturally believe that their view is the best one out there…if they didn’t, they would switch to the better view. It is very difficult for someone who is strongly committed to his faith to not also think that everyone should join his particular understanding. When two such individuals differ in their understandings, it is often difficult for them to share the same house of worship w/o conflict…b/c the other fellow is seen as having rejected the truth with full knowledge.

** A step toward a Solution **
In my youth Catholicism was typically discussed (at my church) in light of this question: Can Catholics get to heaven? Given the history of persecution of Mennonites by Catholics, this question shouldn’t be entirely shocking. I have never known a Protestant group that answered the question with a “no”…but there were those within the groups who thought it rather unlikely that a considerable percentage of Catholics would be saved. Ironically, the Mennonites had their own version of invincible ignorance and concluded that if Catholics were doing the best that they could with their (limited and partial) knowledge, then God would easily save them too. IMHO invincible ignorance is a thing that allows one to accommodate the views of others more easily. Here the CC has taken a step. The next step may be recognizing that if, as humans we only enjoy partial knowledge, then perhaps it should be questioned if many of the “seperated brethren” have willfully rejected Catholic Teaching with full knowledge.…b/c who can be said to have full knowledge? With that next step it would be possible to think that almost any seperated brother may benefit from invincible ignorance. If that perspective is in place, it is much less important that Protestants cross the Tiber and the focus is more upon the “state of one’s heart.” Conversely, from the Protestant perspective, it is much less important that Catholics cross the Tiber in the other direction. It is already recognized by most that Catholics and Protestants enjoy unity around the rule of faith expressed by Tertullian (for example or the even briefer apostle’s creed) and invincible ignorance is a tool allowing us to be more forgiving wrt aspects of the faith not included w/i that brief rule. Invincible ignorance, however, will stop far short of a proper unification, b/c after all, you are still calling your brother “ignorant”.

** Another step toward a solution**
Proper unification (other than by submission to one authority) can only come about if one recognizes that he too, is “ignorant”. IMHO one can easily come to the realization that, since one only enjoys partial knowledge, it is unlikely that one’s own doctrinal beliefs are completely correct. A confident person may counter that partial knowledge didn’t cause Paul to err, but that confident person would have to acknowledge that a great deal has been added to what Paul spelt out with his partial knowledge. It would seem that the “partial knowledge” of modern churches is not nearly as partial as Paul’s “partial knowledge”. The idea of one’s own imperfection (in doctrine) plays out both corporately and individually. Many Catholic scholars seem to have taken this step and have acknowledged that the CC has made errors, but the hierarchy of the CC hasn’t taken this step in that it claims that it has been protected from error. I don’t know if the view will ever transfer from the scholars to the hierarchy and it seems that the hierarchy isn’t keen on pushing the issue and requiring conformity amongst Catholic scholars. It might evolve into the situation where the hierarchy is just out of step with the majority of the devout members of the CC. It seems that the hierarchy is already out of step with the majority of those who are called Catholics. Wrt to non-Catholic churches, I don’t anticipate that many will present their message as, “This is what we believe, but please keep in mind that we probably got some things wrong”. I suppose that if they kept their statement of beliefs to the very basics, then they could say, “This is the core of our beliefs and we are certain that they are correct, but there are other things where we might be wrong.” That just might be honest enough to be attractive. I suspect that a considerable percentage of evangelical protestant churches have taken this step and are prepared to admit that there is uncertainty wrt what they teach (particularly wrt eschatology). For the CC to take this step, however, would require the undoing of much that is Catholic and would amount to the triumph of Protestantism…so I am not optimistic that the hierarchy will take this step, but an ever greater percentage of devout Catholics just might do so. Catholics and non-Catholics that do take this step can unite around the faith of the “simple early days.”

 

[pneuma07]

My wife had the surgeries some time back and the only proven treatment is hormone therapy. That therapy is only used with post-menopausal women and so they have induced menopause (That has been quite the treat for both of us …much worse for her of course.) There are options wrt the manner of inducement and then options wrt the hormones…each, it would seem, with their own complications and side effects. She has been sorting through those complications and effects for a year now trying to find the least difficult combination.

You are both in prayers. How do your children live this ?

I haven’t looked at it in great detail, but I would assume that they essentially shared all doctrine except for the manner in which God manifested in three persons (for lack of a better term). …Part of my reasoning flows from the “mark of an apostle” set out in scripture. It would seem that signs, wonders and miracles served to validate the apostles’ message, but I don’t see any such validation wrt the ECFs. In a lot of ways it would seem that the CC is moving in this direction. When the Catechism makes favorable remarks concerning Muslims at 841, I can’t help but note that the Arian view of Jesus would have been much, much higher than the Muslim view and the Arians would have been so much closer (if not identical) to orthodoxy in all other matters. If the plan of salvation includes Muslims, shouldn’t it include Arians even more so?

Many potentials lines here.

But I’d like to focus two aspects:

1. The authority of the apostles was also validated by wonders. I am with you.
   The implication that there does not exist apostolic auhtority after the Apostles is not IMHO a valid one.
   There are two kinds of marks of legitimate authority: that you are sent by God ( and this is to be expected as linked to wonders, I again agree.
   Or you are a legitimate successor of those above. Whose mark was in genealogy, for aaronite priesthood in the OT ( not necessary for each of them performing miracles) and in spiritual genealogy in the Christian time. You could call it extraordinary and ordinary mandates. We could say our time is “simple”, in a way, in that legitimate christian authority comes, as from the very beginning, from Christ.
   If, on the contrary any bishop should perform wonders, that would not be a wonder any more, after all. . What you could claim, and could see, is a collective legitimation of the Church via miracles. The miracle of the sun in 1917, for one.

Your second point about muslims Arians and the CCC is worth IMHO a full quotation from the source of that passage, ie the Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican II.
*
15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. … In all of Christ’s disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.

1. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) … the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) … Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”,(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.*

TBC

 

[pneuma07]

I would answer that it is b/c the council was overseen by apostles…who had validated authority.

Amen.

But Paul wasn’t the only apostle with validated authority….and so I would ask, can Marcionism be reconciled with all apostolic teaching?

A good question. They’d probably ask where they can find all apostolic teaching.

That’s fair. There is an interesting book that I picked up last month called The Historical Jesus: five views …for what it is worth, I thought it a good read….an Italian copy might be hard to find.

In Christ

Sounds interesting from the link. The so called third quest for the historic Jesus is going on in our time. And who knows, one of the five is maybe the one.
A parallel quest on Paul is also gaining ground, as you know as
“the new Perspective”. I recently tried to start a research thread on this intriguing theological proposal on this very sub-forum. Without success.

To summarize, the humble opinion I have expressed is that “simple early days” were not maybe that simple. And that I do not trust myself to get to know by individual assessment Jesus and His Gospel.

That does not mean I am not open to those who want to explain what are additions, subtractions and corruptions, according to their particular view.

In Christ
P7

 

[Radical]

You are both in prayers. How do your children live this ?

Like me, they assume that it will work out the same as the first time.Thanks for your prayers.

But I’d like to focus two aspects:

1. The authority of the apostles was also validated by wonders. I am with you.
   The implication that there does not exist apostolic auhtority after the Apostles is not IMHO a valid one.

No surprise there

There are two kinds of marks of legitimate authority: that you are sent by God ( and this is to be expected as linked to wonders, I again agree.
Or you are a legitimate successor of those above. Whose mark was in genealogy, for aaronite priesthood in the OT ( not necessary for each of them performing miracles) and in spiritual genealogy in the Christian time.

Spiritual genealogy is exactly what protestants claim to possess, however, they view spiritual genealogy as being achieved spiritually through the possession of the same doctrines as the apostles…and that we all possess the Holy Spirit and witness for Christ.

You could call it extraordinary and ordinary mandates. We could say our time is “simple”, in a way, in that legitimate christian authority comes, as from the very beginning, from Christ.

agreed

If, on the contrary any bishop should perform wonders, that would not be a wonder any more, after all. . What you could claim, and could see, is a collective legitimation of the Church via miracles. The miracle of the sun in 1917, for one.

I don’t see that the Catholic claim to validation by miracles to be of a different quality than LDS or Charismatic claims. I also hear Muslims, Budhists and Hindus all possess such claims (though I have not cared to research the matter).

 

[Radical]

Sounds interesting from the link. The so called third quest for the historic Jesus is going on in our time. And who knows, one of the five is maybe the one.

One could hope…but with two coming out of the Jesus Seminar, it is only three that possess any such potential.

A parallel quest on Paul is also gaining ground, as you know as
“the new Perspective”. I recently tried to start a research thread on this intriguing theological proposal on this very sub-forum. Without success.

was I here at the time?..it sounds like my cup of tea.

To summarize, the humble opinion I have expressed is that “simple early days” were not maybe that simple.

I most certainly agree it wasn’t all that simple. For example, there most certainly is a form of simplicity that is achieved by having a single authoratative hierachy with the “Vicar of Christ” at its head. They didn’t possess a NT canon and they didn’t possess a Catechism and those missing pieces would have led to complications. The “simple” I envision has to do with a lack of additions and not with a systematic theology set out plainly in an organized manual…I sometimes wonder if the underground Church in China (for example) would bear a closer resemblance to the early Church than us in the west.

And that I do not trust myself to get to know by individual assessment Jesus and His Gospel.

I know what you mean, but it is also true that you must make an individual asessment in that regard…even if that assessment calls you to yield to the instruction and interpretation of the CC

That does not mean I am not open to those who want to explain what are additions, subtractions and corruptions, according to their particular view.

Thanks

In Christian brotherhood, may peace be with you and yours.

 

[pneuma07]

Like me, they assume that it will work out the same as the first time.Thanks for your prayers.

No surprise there

Spiritual genealogy is exactly what protestants claim to possess, however, they view spiritual genealogy as being achieved spiritually through the possession of the same doctrines as the apostles…and that we all possess the Holy Spirit and witness for Christ.

agreed

I don’t see that the Catholic claim to validation by miracles to be of a different quality than LDS or Charismatic claims. I also hear Muslims, Budhists and Hindus all possess such claims (though I have not cared to research the matter).

Dear Radical,

          I know  my view on  apostolic succession does not surprise you.  :)

On the “why” side of the matter I just propose one simple remark here, not to derail the thread. The modern reformed view on apostolicity transformed precisely into a subjective claim of orthodoxy what the ancient Church would propose as an objective mark of it.

Miracles, as such, are not an official mark of the Church.

 

[pneuma07]

One could hope…but with two coming out of the Jesus Seminar, it is only three that possess any such potential.

was I here at the time?..it sounds like my cup of tea.

I most certainly agree it wasn’t all that simple. For example, there most certainly is a form of simplicity that is achieved by having a single authoratative hierachy with the “Vicar of Christ” at its head. They didn’t possess a NT canon and they didn’t possess a Catechism and those missing pieces would have led to complications. The “simple” I envision has to do with a lack of additions and not with a systematic theology set out plainly in an organized manual…I sometimes wonder if the underground Church in China (for example) would bear a closer resemblance to the early Church than us in the west.

We share skepticism on Jesus Seminar.
"The new perspective " is a very recent thread here on Non Catholic Religions which I started and which just didn’t fly.

Probably we should compare XXI century Christianity as a whole, with I century Christianity as a whole. Although we are nominally a couple of billion, and they were probably just in the thousands, there were many dissensions then as well as now. And some of them were substantial. And, had the Ebionites been more or less right, there were huge additions, and subtractions, we today share.

For sure chinese chrstianity, with its house churches and its hard time with the powers that be, have something in common with early chrirstians we do not have.

I know what you mean, but it is also true that you must make an individual asessment in that regard…even if that assessment calls you to yield to the instruction and interpretation of the CC

Thanks

In Christian brotherhood, may peace be with you and yours

.

I completely agree with your statement here and thank you for this.

We all come to our conclusions by mere individual assessment, if we’re not merely “cultural” something. No doubt.

The difference IMHO is that the private judgment of the catholic leads him or her in principle to see
the Church as the most reliable witness to Jesus’s message ( and then you still have to use your pj to interpret what she teaches, we again agree), while the private judgment of the protestant, in principle, sees as such itself. Am I on to something here ?

In Christ
P7

 

[Radical]

"The new perspective " is a very recent thread here on Non Catholic Religions which I started and which just didn’t fly.

found it, thanks

We all come to our conclusions by mere individual assessment, if we’re not merely “cultural” something. No doubt.

The difference IMHO is that the private judgment of the catholic leads him or her in principle to see the Church as the most reliable witness to Jesus’s message ( and then you still have to use your pj to interpret what she teaches, we again agree), while the private judgment of the protestant, in principle, sees as such itself. Am I on to something here ?

I would word it differently.

First, I agree with this portion:

the private judgment of the catholic leads him or her in principle to see the Church as the most reliable witness to Jesus’s message ( and then you still have to use your pj to interpret what she teaches)

But I would amend the second part:

the private judgment of the protestant leads him or her in principle to see the books of the New Testament as the most reliable witness to Jesus’s message ( and then you still have to use your pj to interpret what it teaches, with considerable reference to the understandings provided by better informed and more intelligent members of the Church who also possess proven integrity. )

I suspect that what I have added (after “teaches”) to the bracketed bit wrt the pj of the Protestant should also be added (after “teaches”) to the bracketed bit wrt the pj of the Catholic.

In Christ

 

[pneuma07]

found it, thanks

I would word it differently.

First, I agree with this portion:

the private judgment of the catholic leads him or her in principle to see the Church as the most reliable witness to Jesus’s message ( and then you still have to use your pj to interpret what she teaches)

But I would amend the second part:

the private judgment of the protestant leads him or her in principle to see the books of the New Testament as the most reliable witness to Jesus’s message ( and then you still have to use your pj to interpret what it teaches, with considerable reference to the understandings provided by better informed and more intelligent members of the Church who also possess proven integrity. )

I suspect that what I have added (after “teaches”) to the bracketed bit wrt the pj of the Protestant should also be added (after “teaches”) to the bracketed bit wrt the pj of the Catholic.

In Christ

Dear Radical,

building on your suggestion, I’d offer this second wording.

Wording 2

The pj of the catholic leads her or him in principle to see the Church as most reliable living witness to Jesus’ message, in her capacity of servant and guardian of the Word of God, received through Sacred Scripture, as identified by the Church, and Sacred Tradition, ie the life of the Church .
The Catholic than uses pj to interpret what the Church teaches, as well as Sacred Scripture, ready to correct this pj in the light of further interaction with relevant teaching or new magisterial explanations. There also is considerable reference to the understandings by better informed and more intelligent members of the Church ( * on the integrity part you could probably elaborate* ), in particular members of the magisterium or of ministerial priesthood, and approved catholic theologians or apologists, as well as openness to contributions by non catholic brothers.

The pj of the protestant leads her or him to consider itself in principle as the most reliable living witness to Jesus’ message, interpreting the Word of God, received through Sacred Scripture as identified by ( better filled by yourself). There is considerable reference to the understandings provided by better informed and more intelligent members of the Church ( not sure about the meaning used here …), particularly within the denomination, if he or she belongs to one, who also appear to possess integrity ( observation to be elaborated, as per above).

I guess we need some further steps in order to achieve a viable shared statement here.

Which would be cool, BTW, (and maybe ambitious) Getting near to that could also suffice IMHO.

To remain on topic, if we’re now focusing on this exercise of ours, we could probably add a third paragraph such as :

The pj of the believer of say 85 AD ( or 55 or the date we prefer) who was ( let’s say) faithful to the apostolic teaching ……

In Christ
P7

 

[Radical]

Dear Radical,

building on your suggestion, I’d offer this second wording…

…A joint statement would be nice…I’ll focus on the Protestant pj working off your last effort.

The pj of the protestant leads her or him to consider itself in principle as the most reliable living witness to Jesus’ message,…

I do not view my pj as a witness. If someone needs to be pointed to Christ, I point to the scriptures, not me, not my ideas, not my actions, not my church etc. The scriptures are also said to be “alive” in that they can speak to us today in our present situation. Therefore, I would word the first bit as:

The pj of the protestant leads him to consider the available words of the apostles as the most reliable living witness to Jesus’ message.

interpreting the Word of God, received through Sacred Scripture as identified by ( better filled by yourself).

This I need to rework so as to address where the words of the apostles can be found:

*The protestant’s pj leads him to conclude that the NT is the only very reliable source for the words of the apostles with tradition being very unreliable at times. The protestant considers his interpretation (pj) of the words of the apostles as the best interpretation that he has found.(not necessarily the best one that could be found…tis a work in progress of a fallible being). *

There is considerable reference to the understandings provided by better informed and more intelligent members of the Church ( not sure about the meaning used here …), particularly within the denomination, if he or she belongs to one,

The next bit requires an expansion to deal with the identification of the NT:

• In arriving at his understanding, there is considerable reliance on the understandings provided by better informed and more intelligent members of the Church (defined as the invisible body of believers possessed of the Holy Spirit) particularly within the denomination, if he belongs to one. The reliance on others is sometimes very great, particularly wrt determining what extant works can be said to be the words of the apostles. *

who also appear to possess integrity ( observation to be elaborated, as per above).

And this I need to clarify with:

The protestant recognizes that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is most useful in the proper interpretation/understanding of the apostles’ words and so, when referencing the understandings provided by better informed and more intelligent members of the Church, he also considers whether those members exhibit the fruit of the Holy Spirit (which would be indicative of possible guidance).

I guess we need some further steps in order to achieve a viable shared statement here.

Which would be cool, BTW, (and maybe ambitious) Getting near to that could also suffice IMHO.

So to put my effort wrt the protestant togther, it looks like this:

• The pj of the protestant leads her/him to consider the available words of the apostles as the most reliable living witness to Jesus’ message The protestant’s pj leads him/her to conclude that the NT is the only reliable source for the words of the apostles with tradition being very unreliable at times. The protestant considers his/her interpretation (pj) of the words of the apostles as the best one that he/she has found.(not necessarily the best one that could be found…tis a work in progress of a fallible being). In arriving at his/her understanding, there is considerable reliance on the understandings provided by better informed and more intelligent members of the Church (defined as the invisible body of believers possessed of the Holy Spirit) particularly within the denomination, if he/she belongs to one. The reliance on others is sometimes very great, particularly wrt determining what extant works can be said to be the words of the apostles. The protestant recognizes that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is most useful in the proper interpretation/understanding of the apostles’ words and so, when referencing the understandings provided by better informed and more intelligent members of the Church, he/she also considers whether those members exhibit the fruit of the Holy Spirit (which would be indicative of possible guidance).*…I might add that the bottom line is that no one has “stepped into the shoes of the apostles” so as to be able to speak as they did.

Ain’t that typical…it gets wordier and wordier with every redraft. I can’t say how well that would speak for other protestants, but I think it describes what I do.

 

[Radical]

To remain on topic, if we’re now focusing on this exercise of ours, we could probably add a third paragraph such as :

The pj of the believer of say 85 AD ( or 55 or the date we prefer) who was ( let’s say) faithful to the apostolic teaching ……

If I focus on a Corinthian Christian from 55 AD (CC55) and assume that Paul has visited, left and sent them his first epistle and that no other Apostle has visited. It could look like this:

• The pj of the CC55 leads her/him to consider the available words of the apostle Paul as the most reliable available/living witness to Jesus’ message. The CC55’s pj leads him/her to conclude that the apostle’s words (remembered and in the letter) are the only very reliable source for Christ’s message with the witness of non-apostles, the words of itinerant prophets, the glossialia of the congregation being very unreliable at times. The CC55 considers his interpretation (pj) of the words of the apostles as the best one that he/she has found.(not necessarily the best one that could be found…tis a work in progress of a fallible being and a further letter or two could be needed for correction of him/herself and his/her church including its leaders.) In arriving at his/her understanding, there is considerable reliance on the understandings provided by better informed and more intelligent members of the Church (defined as the invisible body of believers possessed of the Holy Spirit) particularly within Corinth. The CC55 recognizes that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is most useful in the proper interpretation/understanding of the apostle’s words and so, when referencing the understandings provided by better informed and more intelligent members of the Church, he/she also considers whether those members exhibit the fruit of the Holy Spirit (which would be indicative of possible guidance).*…one might add that the bottom line is that in 55 AD no one has “stepped into the shoes of the apostle” so as to be able to speak as Paul did.

So, what do you think?

In Christ

 

[Libertarian_FL]

Look for the true message of the messenger - Jesus.

We are simple in faith really Jesus made few demands we must love God, honor His sacrifice and rising from the dead as the sacrifice for our sins, be baptized and live well in His example.

Church if its translated literally means called-our ones, its not a building or a denomination its the faith Jesus founded to serve Him. On this Rock I will build MY church. We serve only one Master and the denominations and church system is failing with gatekeepers.

Roman Catholics = The Magistrum and Pope, Local Leaders

Protestants = Pastor Generals, Committees, Local Leaders

Orthodox Churches = Patriarchs, Councils, Local Leaders

You know what I see all ritual and no guts to do what we are called-out to do give to the poor, be Chirst-like, be a family and a community under Christ.

Churches in the human sense hurt people, are sources of power to abuse, are elitist in most cases with some Christians thinking they are better than others and the flock dictating to the local pastor. And the local pastors seeking more and better positions for stupid reasons. And a faith that is there to make money to a gentry class of ministers who are so out of touch with the true core of the faith its depressing.

I will make this case drop all of these denominations and churches, close the seminaries and sanctuaries, have ministers work for a living and let Christ through the Holy Spirit to the work. We follow Christ and Him alone and any distractions from that, every dollar tossed away that could go to aiding the message in a real way and every Christian that is not a Christ-like example hurts the real purpose we are here.

I was in a local fast food restaurnat today and two women were talking about another that she was not dressed right, not someone they wanted in their church and should try to see she leaves talking to the women’s committee. I was outraged this was an open talk, of two women of I take it prominant church families who tithe and do all the big committee work allowed making Chrisitans look like bitter fools. I told them that and defended this woman who apprently just poor so had modest things. Its not isolated by the way I see the pain your all causing due to your systems and not caring about the damage you do to those you seem to look down on.

Its time to adapt, toss out 2000 years of mostly garbage and make the faith the Spiritual Church what matters with new systems of worship the home church movement is one, the simple church movement is one and we could create others not top heavy with aristocratic clergy but of the power of God. You simple need to get real and decide are you of this Earthly Kingdom or of God’s Kingdom and then if the former I suggest you leave the faith your not of God.

 

[pneuma07]

…A joint statement would be nice…I’ll focus on the Protestant pj working off your last effort.

I do not view my pj as a witness. If someone needs to be pointed to Christ, I point to the scriptures, not me, not my ideas, not my actions, not my church etc. The scriptures are also said to be “alive” in that they can speak to us today in our present situation. Therefore, I would word the first bit as:

The pj of the protestant leads him to consider the available words of the apostles as the most reliable living witness to Jesus’ message.
This I need to rework so as to address where the words of the apostles can be found:

( edited to get space)

So to put my effort wrt the protestant togther, it looks like this:

• The pj of the protestant leads her/him to consider the available words of the apostles as the most reliable living witness to Jesus’ message The protestant’s pj leads him/her to conclude that the NT is the only reliable source for the words of the apostles with tradition being very unreliable at times. The protestant considers his/her interpretation (pj) of the words of the apostles as the best one that he/she has found.(not necessarily the best one that could be found…tis a work in progress of a fallible being). In arriving at his/her understanding, there is considerable reliance on the understandings provided by better informed and more intelligent members of the Church (defined as the invisible body of believers possessed of the Holy Spirit) particularly within the denomination, if he/she belongs to one. The reliance on others is sometimes very great, particularly wrt determining what extant works can be said to be the words of the apostles. The protestant recognizes that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is most useful in the proper interpretation/understanding of the apostles’ words and so, when referencing the understandings provided by better informed and more intelligent members of the Church, he/she also considers whether those members exhibit the fruit of the Holy Spirit (which would be indicative of possible guidance).*…I might add that the bottom line is that no one has “stepped into the shoes of the apostles” so as to be able to speak as they did.

Ain’t that typical…it gets wordier and wordier with every redraft. I can’t say how well that would speak for other protestants, but I think it describes what I do.

Dear Radical

that is a fine effort IMHO. We could just take it as quite detailed description.

Or, for a better mutual understanding, here are some points we could explore:

• The expression “words of the apostles” is key here. It should be precised whether this is literal or to be understood as “reliable source on the words of the apostles”, in its turn.

We are told by a growing trend in XXI scholarship that outside the corpus paulinum ( and there are questions within it too) there can be little, or possibly even nothing, in the canonical NT we share, which was written by an Apostle. And the NT was likely not completed as we have it before the death of the last Apostle.
This should not be considered devastating . If we just accept the disciples of the Apostles were very well trained and guided by the Spirit. So we have the words of Christ we read in the Gospel through those who succeeded the Apostles, however we look at the question. We simply cannot bypass them IMHO.

Now, did they, or anybody later, “step into the shoes of the apostles” ? By no means. They did not claim to be Apostles. The first duty they did receive was to preserve the deposit. And, by doing so, they respected the Apostles’ will, and delivered to us His message, rather than stepping into their shoes.
They were precisely commanded to preserve the deposit. From Paul we can get the *locus *of the preservation of his apostolic teaching, selected by himself, was Saint Timothy, and Saint Titus … , and those to succeed them.
Had he thought everything would eventually get lost of his decades of preaching, and life within disciples and congregations, but his written texts, why bothering doing anything else but writing, which took probably less than 1 per cent of his pastoral effort ? As for most other Apostles, if they would not write, they simply more or less would work in vain, in such a view.

• Scriptures can speak to us, for sure. What we cannot do is…… speaking to Scriptures. “Tell me, please, Mike explains you say like this here, Kenneth on the contrary is confident you teach like that. What do you really mean ?” We could certainly amend my expression “living” just to reflect this situation. Something like “able to offer feedback, to tell you “OK” or “now you are wrong”, to dialogue”
• While a seeming right behavior makes a person charismatic in our eyes, and so other possible qualities, there is IMHO no immediate link between that and orthodoxy. Also because, it’s, again, on my poor pj’s shoulders, and also a little judgmentally so, which is given this way the burden to establish any single time who is reliable…
• And, again, my pj has even to “see” who is in the …. invisible Church. . Personally, I confess I should be tempted any time to consider reliable just those who more or less fit with my own view. And this Church which is invisible, more or less delivers the Scriptures, with something from my pj, if I get.( I met once here in CAF a protestant brother who plainly gave himself the authority to establish what books are canonical). I cannot understand at present how an invisible body canonizes and delivers Scriptures.

More than enough for my observations.

 

[pneuma07]

If I focus on a Corinthian Christian from 55 AD (CC55) and assume that Paul has visited, left and sent them his first epistle and that no other Apostle has visited. It could look like this:

• The pj of the CC55 leads her/him to consider the available words of the apostle Paul as the most reliable available/living witness to Jesus’ message. The CC55’s pj leads him/her to conclude that the apostle’s words (remembered and in the letter) are the only very reliable source for Christ’s message with the witness of non-apostles, the words of itinerant prophets, the glossialia of the congregation being very unreliable at times. The CC55 considers his interpretation (pj) of the words of the apostles as the best one that he/she has found.(not necessarily the best one that could be found…tis a work in progress of a fallible being and a further letter or two could be needed for correction of him/herself and his/her church including its leaders.) In arriving at his/her understanding, there is considerable reliance on the understandings provided by better informed and more intelligent members of the Church (defined as the invisible body of believers possessed of the Holy Spirit) particularly within Corinth. The CC55 recognizes that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is most useful in the proper interpretation/understanding of the apostle’s words and so, when referencing the understandings provided by better informed and more intelligent members of the Church, he/she also considers whether those members exhibit the fruit of the Holy Spirit (which would be indicative of possible guidance).*…one might add that the bottom line is that in 55 AD no one has “stepped into the shoes of the apostle” so as to be able to speak as Paul did.

So, what do you think?

In Christ

The congregation in Corinth was seemingly an example of people going easily outside apostolic teaching, and creating multiple dissenting parties. I guess we may assume this CC55 is after the apostolic teaching, else we’d need another temptative description.

The pj of the CC55 leads him to consider Paul ( which he assumes in line with the other apostles therefore identifying his teaching with apostolic teaching tout court) and the other apostles as the most reliable living witness to Jesus’ message. He uses his pj to interpret what Paul teaches, and considers his understanding of the words of the apostles as the best one that he/she has found(not necessarily the best one that could be found…tis a work in progress of a fallible being and further teachings, and explanations on those already received, would be needed for correction of him/herself and his/her church including its leaders.) In arriving at his/her understanding, there is considerable reliance on the understandings provided by better informed and more intelligent members of the Church ( defined as the visible body of believers in communion with the apostles ), in particular those appointed by Paul himself, or another apostle, to a role of leadership. He sees the Apostle as source of legitimacy and reliability within the Church. He is ready to be corrected and submit according to explanations by the Apostle, which he asks for ( see 1 Cor 7.1), or those appointed by him.

Well, our assessments appear a little different from each other. As it happens, it should be determined how much of the difference is substantial, and what is just seemingly different.

Here is how another christian , for sure more informed and intelligent than myself ( dunno whether belonging to the invisible Church) puts it, in XIX century language and context ( unfortunately I’m getting fond of rather long quotations )

ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/JUDGMENT.TXT

*Now, my dear brethren, consider, are not these two states or
acts of mind quite distinct from each other;–to believe simply what a
living authority tells you, and to take a book such as Scripture, and
to use it as you please, to master it, that is, to make yourself the
master of it, to interpret it for yourself, and to admit just what you
choose to see in it, and nothing more?

Are not these two procedures
distinct in this, that in the former you submit, in the latter you
judge? At this moment I am not asking you which is the better, I am
not asking whether this or that is practicable now, but are they not
two ways of taking up a doctrine, and not one? is not submission quite
contrary to judging? Now, is it not certain that faith in the time of
the Apostles consisted in submitting? and is it not certain that it
did not consist in judging for one’s self. *

TBC

 

[pneuma07]

ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/JUDGMENT.TXT

continuing
It is in vain to say that
the man who judges from the Apostle’s writings, does submit to those
writings in the first instance, and therefore has faith in them; else
why should he refer to them at all?
There is, I repeat, an essential
difference between the act of submitting to a living oracle, and to
his written words; in the former case there is no appeal from the
speaker, in the latter the final decision remains with the reader.

Consider how different is the confidence with which you report
another’s words in his presence and in his absence. If he be absent,
you boldly say that he holds so and so, or said so and so; but let him
come into the room in the midst of the conversation, and your tone is
immediately changed. It is then, ‘I THINK I have heard you say
something LIKE this, or what I TOOK to be this’; or you modify
considerably the statement or the fact to which you originally pledged
him, dropping one half of it for safety sake, or retrenching the most
startling portions of it; and then after all you wait with some
anxiety to see whether he will accept any portion of it at all. The
same sort of process takes place in the case of the written document
of a person now dead. I can fancy a man magisterially expounding St.
Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians or to the Ephesians, who would be
better content with the writer’s absence than his sudden re-appearance
among us……

    I think I may assume that this virtue, which was exercised by

the first Christians, is not known at all among Protestants now; or at
least if there are instances of it, it is exercised towards those, I
mean their own teachers and divines, who expressly disclaim that they
are fit objects of it, and who exhort their people to judge
themselves……

    Such is the only rational, consistent account of faith; but so

far are Protestants from professing it, that they laugh at the very
notion of it. They laugh at the very notion itself of men pinning
their faith (as they express themselves) upon Pope or Council; they
think it simply superstitious and narrow-minded, to profess to believe
just what the Church believes, and to assent to whatever she will say
in time to come on matters of doctrine.

That is, they laugh at the
bare notion of doing what Christians undeniably did in the time of the
Apostles. Observe, they do not merely ask whether the Catholic Church
has a claim to teach, has authority, has the gifts;–this is a
reasonable question;–no, they think that the very state of mind which
such a claim involves in those who admit it, namely, the disposition
to accept without reserve or question, that THIS is slavish.

They call
it priestcraft to insist on this surrender of the reason, and
superstition to make it. ….nor is there
any doubt (who will deny it?) that those who thus boast of not being
led blindfold, of judging for themselves, of believing just as much
and just as little as they please, of hating dictation, and so forth,
would have found it an extreme difficultly to hang on the lips of the
Apostles, had they lived at their date ….*

John Henry Newman

Strength of the language and some updating apart, the bottom line is IMHO:

those first christians from whom we all boast inspiration, were submitted to the legitimate
christian authority, represented then by the Apostles themselves.
Given this seeming agreement, our question appears:

Was that to be completely changed with the first post-apostolic generation ?

In christian brotherhood
P7

 

[Radical]

Hello Pneuma07, I’ll return to your interesting observations from the previous post once I have had more time to reflect

The pj of the CC55 leads him to consider Paul ( which he assumes in line with the other apostles therefore identifying his teaching with apostolic teaching tout court) and the other apostles as the most reliable living witness to Jesus’ message. He uses his pj to interpret what Paul teaches, and considers his understanding of the words of the apostles as the best one that he/she has found(not necessarily the best one that could be found…tis a work in progress of a fallible being and further teachings, and explanations on those already received, would be needed for correction of him/herself and his/her church including its leaders.) In arriving at his/her understanding, there is considerable reliance on the understandings provided by better informed and more intelligent members of the Church ( defined as the visible body of believers in communion with the apostles ), in particular those appointed by Paul himself, or another apostle, to a role of leadership. He sees the Apostle as source of legitimacy and reliability within the Church. He is ready to be corrected and submit according to explanations by the Apostle, which he asks for ( see 1 Cor 7.1), or those appointed by him.

There is nothing in your statement that warrants an objection from me. I hadn’t mentioned an apostle besides Paul b/c I had assumed none had communicated with Corinth at that time…(I kinda ignored Barnabas), but it is a good addition. As you may recall from previous conversations I see a theme of submission to authority in the NT. Wife to husband. Slave to master. Christian to government. As such, I agree that the man in the pew should submit to the overseers of the church. The issue I have is that I do not see any call for an absolute form of submission apart from submission to God himself. I would say that we are to submit absolutely to God and to all other authorities to the extent that such submission does not require us to breach God’s commandments or to violate his message.

Here is how another christian , for sure more informed and intelligent than myself ( dunno whether belonging to the invisible Church) puts it, in XIX century language and context ( unfortunately I’m getting fond of rather long quotations )

nothing wrong with a fondness for long quotes

*Now, my dear brethren, consider, are not these two states or acts of mind quite distinct from each other;–to believe simply what a living authority tells you, and to take a book such as Scripture, and to use it as you please, to master it, that is, to make yourself the master of it, to interpret it for yourself, and to admit just what you choose to see in it, and nothing more?

Are not these two procedures distinct in this, that in the former you submit, in the latter you
judge?..*

I find in Newman’s words a criticism of the protestant approach that is not accurate (at least not at this day and age…eg the “slavish” bit). Who submits to an authority w/o having first judged it to be a legitimate authority? Newman acknowledges that it is reasonable to question whether the CC possesses a valid authority, but then seems to pass over that we all ** judge** the legitimacy of that alleged authority. It is not then, virtuous submission vs. ill-founded judging. If the authority is judged to be legitimate, then of course it is wise and virtuous to submit to it. On the other hand, if the authority is judged to be illegitimate, then of course it is wise and virtuous to not submit to it and we are thrown to an approach that does not consist of submission to a bad authority.

Now, is it not certain that faith in the time of the Apostles consisted in submitting? and is it not certain that it did not consist in judging for one’s self.

Isn’t it certain that they judged for themselves that the Apostle’s were legitimate?..and having done so, they submitted?

Consider how different is the confidence with which you report another’s words in his presence and in his absence. If he be absent, you boldly say that he holds so and so, or said so and so; but let him come into the room in the midst of the conversation, and your tone is
immediately changed. It is then, ‘I THINK I have heard you say something LIKE this, or what I TOOK to be this’; or you modify considerably the statement or the fact to which you originally pledged him, dropping one half of it for safety sake, or retrenching the most startling portions of it; and then after all you wait with some anxiety to see whether he will accept any portion of it at all. The same sort of process takes place in the case of the written document of a person now dead. I can fancy a man magisterially expounding St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians or to the Ephesians, who would be better content with the writer’s absence than his sudden re-appearance among us……

Likewise, I can (as easily) imagine a council magisterially expounding St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians or to the Ephesians, who would be better content with the Paul’s absence than his sudden re-appearance among them….We would hope that the individual Christian and the council would both welcome Paul’s presence, but if you want to think otherwise, it is possible to do so in both cases…

Such is the only rational, consistent account of faith; but so far are Protestants from professing it, that they laugh at the very notion of it. They laugh at the very notion itself of men pinning their faith (as they express themselves) upon Pope or Council; they think it simply superstitious and narrow-minded, to profess to believe just what the Church believes, and to assent to whatever she will say in time to come on matters of doctrine.

What would be rational or consistent about submitting to an invalid authority?

Strength of the language and some updating apart, the bottom line is IMHO:

those first christians from whom we all boast inspiration, were submitted to the legitimate
christian authority, represented then by the Apostles themselves.
Given this seeming agreement, our question appears:

Was that to be completely changed with the first post-apostolic generation ?

or…Did that legitimate Christian authority remain exactly the same even though it was no longer represented by the Apostles themselves? Either question gets to the heart of the matter.

In Christian brotherhood

 

[pneuma07]

There is nothing in your statement that warrants an objection from me. I hadn’t mentioned an apostle besides Paul b/c I had assumed none had communicated with Corinth at that time…(I kinda ignored Barnabas), but it is a good addition. As you may recall from previous conversations I see a theme of submission to authority in the NT. Wife to husband. Slave to master. Christian to government. As such, I agree that the man in the pew should submit to the overseers of the church. The issue I have is that I do not see any call for an absolute form of submission apart from submission to God himself. I would say that we are to submit absolutely to God and to all other authorities to the extent that such submission does not require us to breach God’s commandments or to violate his message.

Wow,

  that means..... we found, after just a couple of steps, a joint statement on early apostolic Christianity.  :yyeess:   About which  I would of course accept  with pleasure better wordings.  (  "apostolic" is necessary here, since we are not describing those whose pjs were leading against  the acknowledgment of apostolic authority towards different forms of dissension).

I presume you follow the view that visible Church in communion with the Apostles and invisible church are interchangable concepts in the apostolic generation.

I’d also subscribe your statement about authority ! Many protestant brothers baldly proclaim they recognize no religious authority but God. That sounds to MHO plainly against … God’s authority. By inserting the adjective “absolute” you propose IMHO a brilliant solution.

It goes without saying that, once the authority you accept is recognized by your pj as a superior informant ( another expression I’d offer besides “witness”) on our Lord, you do submit your pj to it.
In other words, the approach is: “if she and I differ on this, I must be wrong”. " if I have no idea on this issue, I receive her as mine", “it’s me who have to fit with her teaching, not the other way” … That is what we could describe as a high degree of trust. Trust and submission, faith and obedience appear IMHO strictly related.

This trust is not absolute, ie we could imagine extreme conditions which would shake it.

This leads us towards the newmannian quotation.

I find in Newman’s words a criticism of the protestant approach that is not accurate (at least not at this day and age…eg the “slavish” bit). Who submits to an authority w/o having first judged it to be a legitimate authority? Newman acknowledges that it is reasonable to question whether the CC possesses a valid authority, but then seems to pass over that we all ** judge** the legitimacy of that alleged authority. It is not then, virtuous submission vs. ill-founded judging. If the authority is judged to be legitimate, then of course it is wise and virtuous to submit to it. On the other hand, if the authority is judged to be illegitimate, then of course it is wise and virtuous to not submit to it and we are thrown to an approach that does not consist of submission to a bad authority.

Isn’t it certain that they judged for themselves that the Apostle’s were legitimate?..and having done so, they submitted?

If you can take the time to read the whole speech, you can see Newman and you agree about this. It appears you Newman and I agree in principle on what a right attitude could be.
He appears afraid that Protestants, in his time, are no more able to accept and follow a legitimate authority, not ready to submit their pjs, in ANY case ( or they submit de facto to those teaching …not to submit) Since you’re far from laughing at the idea of submission to a human legitimate christian authority, as such, he’s just speaking about other attitudes.

Likewise, I can (as easily) imagine a council magisterially expounding St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians or to the Ephesians, who would be better content with the Paul’s absence than his sudden re-appearance among them….We would hope that the individual Christian and the council would both welcome Paul’s presence, but if you want to think otherwise, it is possible to do so in both cases…

That’s very fair. I might add that, IMH impression, there is, as a rule, more self-control within the CC, from a Council to single preachers, in showing to know precisely what Paul says in Paul’s absence, than within Protestantisms, particularly the least structured forms.

What would be rational or consistent about submitting to an invalid authority?

Nothing, IMHO, if I know it’s invalid.

or…Did that legitimate Christian authority remain exactly the same even though it was no longer represented by the Apostles themselves? Either question gets to the heart of the matter.

We can find several formulations, but the crux is around questions of this sort.

( BTW if you ask for a “simple yes or no” on this precise formulation, than I answer “no”,
because of the “exactly”). So, there was a legitimate authority in the post-apostolic Church, you mean.

In Christian brotherhood

 

[XinMinny]

Pneuma and Radical,

Thanks for all the comments here. I think it is bit ironic. This thread is about the ‘Simple Early Days’ and yet you fellows are seeking to define the thought process of an early Christian in a way that I am not sure any early Christian would have. So, again, the simplicity that some love and desire has gone by the wayside. That is not rebuke, merely observation on my part.

I rather think the process may have gone more like this: For all early believers, the first message they would have heard would likely have been similar to what is recorded in Acts 10 to Cornelius: Jesus…went about doing good…and God was with him. Everything else would then line up with that. All teaching about Him would come back to the doing good and God was with him. I believe this would have drawn something in the hearts (not just the minds - that is why it cannot be formulated so precisely as you fellows are trying to do IMO), and those would have believed the message.

Ever after that, everything that comes from every teaching authority would be filtered in their hearts through that idea of whether this ‘sounds like’ or ‘feels like’ it is in agreement in spirit and sense with the first message. If so, they would assent to it, and submit to it. If not, they would likely not pay heed, and may even have sent some kind of message to Paul or another asking for clarification.

So, there is submitting. But, as has been described above, not blindly. And, it is a submission of spirit or attitude. And, to authority who also has the same spirit of submission to the One who sent them.

It is this portion which I believe has been somehow lost. What we have today is a teaching body in which I personally don’t perceive a great deal of the spirit of humility. (I can not picture in my mind the Magisterium bowing in humble prayer before announcing many of the doctrines which are promulgated now or through the centuries. That is the reason I have a hard time putting confidence in it). Or, the idea that every one is on their own - that is not healthy either, and not in keeping with the early days.

I believe there is a way in which people can in good conscience examine the Scriptures for themselves, with a prayer in their heart that God would lead them. And, their honesty will allow the HS to give them the truth. Of course, that can be abused. People can read and fool themselves into thinking they are being honest when what they really want is what suits them.

And, that is why I long for the simplicity of Jesus’ own doctrine. Love one another. Ask, seek, knock. Pray in secret, not looking for acclamation from others. Be honest. Honor God. Plead for the Holy Spirit. Desire the fruit of the Spirit in your lives. Obviously these are a bit simplified for this discussion, but those simple things are things we need to hear again and again and again. And, the further we get from them in intellectual formulation, the worse off we are.

At least that is more and more my own conviction.

Now, continue…

Minny

 

[Radical]

Pneuma and Radical,

Thanks for all the comments here. I think it is bit ironic. This thread is about the ‘Simple Early Days’ and yet you fellows are seeking to define the thought process of an early Christian in a way that I am not sure any early Christian would have. So, again, the simplicity that some love and desire has gone by the wayside. That is not rebuke, merely observation on my part.

I rather think the process may have gone more like this: For all early believers, the first message they would have heard would likely have been similar to what is recorded in Acts 10 to Cornelius: Jesus…went about doing good…and God was with him. Everything else would then line up with that. All teaching about Him would come back to the doing good and God was with him.

I think you have focused on the wrong bit from Acts 10. I would suggest that it must have centered around his death and resurrection, otherwise Jesus would not have been viewed as being all that special. All teaching about Him would then come back to why he died, what was achieved by his resurrection and how do we receive the benefit of those two acts/ what should we do in response.

It is this portion which I believe has been somehow lost. What we have today is a teaching body in which I personally don’t perceive a great deal of the spirit of humility. (I can not picture in my mind the Magisterium bowing in humble prayer before announcing many of the doctrines which are promulgated now or through the centuries.

I can easily picture a Magisterium bowing in humble prayer.

And, that is why I long for the simplicity of Jesus’ own doctrine. Love one another. Ask, seek, knock. Pray in secret, not looking for acclamation from others. Be honest. Honor God. Plead for the Holy Spirit. Desire the fruit of the Spirit in your lives. Obviously these are a bit simplified for this discussion, but those simple things are things we need to hear again and again and again. And, the further we get from them in intellectual formulation, the worse off we are.

I quite agree, but I still need to be able to spell out Christ’s teaching. I don’t want to follow additions to what he taught, I don’t want to make into central tenets things which he placed on the periphery and I don’t want to disregard that which he thought important enough to mention.

 

[pneuma07]

Pneuma and Radical,

Thanks for all the comments here. I think it is bit ironic. This thread is about the ‘Simple Early Days’ and yet you fellows are seeking to define the thought process of an early Christian in a way that I am not sure any early Christian would have. So, again, the simplicity that some love and desire has gone by the wayside. That is not rebuke, merely observation on my part.

I rather think the process may have gone more like this: For all early believers, the first message they would have heard would likely have been similar to what is recorded in Acts 10 to Cornelius: Jesus…went about doing good…and God was with him. Everything else would then line up with that. All teaching about Him would come back to the doing good and God was with him. I believe this would have drawn something in the hearts (not just the minds - that is why it cannot be formulated so precisely as you fellows are trying to do IMO), and those would have believed the message.

Ever after that, everything that comes from every teaching authority would be filtered in their hearts through that idea of whether this ‘sounds like’ or ‘feels like’ it is in agreement in spirit and sense with the first message. If so, they would assent to it, and submit to it. If not, they would likely not pay heed, and may even have sent some kind of message to Paul or another asking for clarification.

So, there is submitting. But, as has been described above, not blindly. And, it is a submission of spirit or attitude. And, to authority who also has the same spirit of submission to the One who sent them.

It is this portion which I believe has been somehow lost. What we have today is a teaching body in which I personally don’t perceive a great deal of the spirit of humility. (I can not picture in my mind the Magisterium bowing in humble prayer before announcing many of the doctrines which are promulgated now or through the centuries. That is the reason I have a hard time putting confidence in it). Or, the idea that every one is on their own - that is not healthy either, and not in keeping with the early days.

I believe there is a way in which people can in good conscience examine the Scriptures for themselves, with a prayer in their heart that God would lead them. And, their honesty will allow the HS to give them the truth. Of course, that can be abused. People can read and fool themselves into thinking they are being honest when what they really want is what suits them.

And, that is why I long for the simplicity of Jesus’ own doctrine. Love one another. Ask, seek, knock. Pray in secret, not looking for acclamation from others. Be honest. Honor God. Plead for the Holy Spirit. Desire the fruit of the Spirit in your lives. Obviously these are a bit simplified for this discussion, but those simple things are things we need to hear again and again and again. And, the further we get from them in intellectual formulation, the worse off we are.

At least that is more and more my own conviction.

Now, continue…

Minny

Hi Minny !

Hearts are even more important than minds. Simplicity is in itself a good. …There is much I share in this contribution of yours. .

Personally I do long for a simple life, a simple society. But then we are here and use the Internet and dialogue on the global village……which is not exactly the product of simplicity.

Christianity experienced since the early times multiple interactions: with Judaism ( or Judaisms if we prefer ), from which it parted, with the richness of Greek thought, with the imperial power …. Answers had to be given . Remember 1 Peter 3:15 ?
That is how quite naturally you get developments in doctrines….

Then we and any average believer do have IMHO the right to get to know what is “essential”, being confident that’s that. But probably each of us would define essentials a little differently from each other. An informant, or a Magisterium, is just what is needed for that.
How do you know there is no humble praying by those in highest responsibility ? Don’t they know they need God’s help even more than you and me ?

Thanks for your advice, which I consider with full serious-mindedness, and BTW
for the thread.

In Christ
P7