'Sola Caritas' Trumps 'Sola fide'

[mcq72]

So, we decide that a democratic process is superior for determining truth?

Well, than supreme papal authority, on this side of eternity? Yes. Closer to first council, yes.

 

[mcq72]

Anyway, it would be wisest to unapologetically concentrate it in one visible and locatable place either way as I see it,

Well, when His kingdom fully comes yes, but not now. Christ chose twelve apostles. Yes, one was first amongst equals, in service not jurisdiction over. There is no special place listed for Peter save that he is one of twelve apostolic foundations on which we are all built upon, Christ being the chief cornerstone.

“Church” is a Greek rendering of ecclessia, the called out ones, as to a meeting, as in context of democracy that Greeks knew.

A universal church does not need a central authority, and at most a central example. A universal church by its nature is to be one, the same in one city as it is in another. At first this was due to unified apostolic teaching from the twelve, in cities they started churches. After the apostles, councils handled upcoming conflicts. Will agree that patriarchs did arise, representing their bishops. Any further centralizing into one head patriarch has always been controversial.

 

[Woodyl57]

The way I look at:

The resurrected Christ in his gloried body is the central authority, the King. His bride, the Church, is the glorified kingdom of David. Christ Mother is it’s queen as Bathsheba, the mother of Solomon, was queen. And as seen in Isaiah 22, the prime minister of David’s kingdom holds the keys, has authority to bind and loose, and is the sure peg that ensures the unity of the kingdom. In the gloried kingdom of David, this prime minister is the Pope, who was given the keys, the power to bind and loose, and under whom unity is maintained. Apart from the holy father, divisions increase, authority is scattered. The Holy Father has only the authority Christ gives him, the holy spirit guards against human error in faith and morals and safeguards the deposit of faith.

Just the way I understand it. I respect that others disagree or understand differently. Thanks

 

[fhansen]

A universal church does not need a central authority, and at most a central example. A universal church by its nature is to be one, the same in one city as it is in another. At first this was due to unified apostolic teaching from the twelve, in cities they started churches. After the apostles, councils handled upcoming conflicts. Will agree that patriarchs did arise, representing their bishops. Any further centralizing into one head patriarch has always been controversial.

Hmm, so where is this universal Church? It must have a unity of faith, of course. Lutheranism, maybe? Calvinism? And it must be able to speak for all of Christianity, with confidence, certain of its role, and be able to call councils, etc. And, it must at least grasp the gospel well enough to teach, “At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love”, having arrived at that mature understanding of our Lords’ nature and will for man.

 

[mcq72]

Hmm, so where is this universal Church? It must have a unity of faith, of course. Lutheranism, maybe? Calvinism?

It is not universal unless it is defined in a way that is universal.

You continue to define it narrowly and with sectarian slant in mind.

John did not do so, but defined the multitude of saints from all over the world, before the throne, as those souls who have been washed by the blood of the Lamb. They were quite visible.

Names such as Lutheran, Orthodox, Catholic will not be used up there, nor in the kingdom to come.

 

[fhansen]

It is not universal unless it is defined in a way that is universal.

You continue to define it narrowly and with sectarian slant in mind.

John did not do so, but defined the multitude of saints from all over the world, before the throne, as those souls who have been washed by the blood of the Lamb. They were quite visible.

Names such as Lutheran, Orthodox, Catholic will not be used up there, nor in the kingdom to come.

Gosh, sounds wonderful. But God failed, then, at providing a practical means of knowing the faith and keeping it unified, to have a unified body of beliefs to present to the world? It’s sort of an every man for himself thing? There’s no facility or agency on earth that can say, ok, here’s the truth about the Christian faith? Do I have a sectarian slant in mind if I exclude JWs from the fold? After all, they argue reasonably from Scripture alone rejecting Christ’s deity.

 

[mcq72]

John did not do so, but defined the multitude of saints from all over the world, before the throne, as those souls who have been washed by the blood of the Lamb. They were quite visible.

Names such as Lutheran, Orthodox, Catholic will not be used up there, nor in the kingdom to come.

Gosh, sounds wonderful. But God failed, then, at providing a practical means of knowing the faith

It is wonderful…we will be praising Him forever for it.

I would not impugn His goodness and faithfulness to my or your paradigm of what is perceived to be practical governance.

It is there where i apply, hopefully correctly, " let every man be called a liar (sectarian?), but God is true".

 

[mcq72]

Do I have a sectarian slant in mind if I exclude JWs from the fold

Yes and no. Correct they as an organization do not have correct gospel. Now it is a question of your paradigm of just how much weight you put on " organization/ institution" as to what constitutes the “church”, the " called out ones".

To my point, I do not rule out the possibility that an individual JW may indeed have washed their robe in the blood of the Lamb, being unaware of their turmoiled doctrine, and will be in heaven with the rest of us.

Again, being “washed by the blood” is the criteria given by the angel, with no mention of church affiliation.

 

[fhansen]

To my point, I do not rule out the possibility that an individual JW may indeed have washed their robe in the blood of the Lamb, being unaware of their turmoiled doctrine, and will be in heaven with the rest of us.

I’m not speaking in any way about an individual’s faith and relationship with God, but about knowing the true faith in its fullness so that we aren’t pleasing Him in spite of a flawed set of beliefs. Are we on the same page here? Doesn’t God want us to know?? Isn’t that what revelation is all about?

And, BTW, by what authority do you deny the veracity of JW beliefs? Is it just based on your opinion/private interpretation of Scripture?

 

[fhansen]

I would not impugn His goodness and faithfulness to my or your paradigm of what is perceived to be practical governance.

Right you shouldn’t do that. We need to remember that there’s only one faith. And it seems to me to be more than just a bit of obstinacy to not face that truth and question just where we might find it. Sheez- we cannot even get people here to understand and agree on this one central truth of the Christian faith:
"At the evening of life we shall be judged our our love."

That’s apparently how far removed the “Reformers” were from the truth-with their offspring bravely blazing even more wayward trails now. And that particular insight happened to be granted to John of the Cross during the beginnings of the Reformation interestingly-to me at least.

 

[mcq72]

I’m not speaking in any way about an individual’s faith and relationship with God,

Yes but we were talking about the universal church, which to me includes individuals. Isnt that part of what revelation is all about, souls washed by the blood of the Lamb?

but about knowing the true faith in its fullness so that we aren’t pleasing Him in spite of a flawed set of beliefs

And what about having a right set of beliefs and not pleasing God?

Of course we are to please God, walking in the right set of beliefs.

For one who stresses that we will be judged by our love, rightly so, you seem to be even more decisive to be in a particular church, where right revelation is where it is at.

 

[Woodyl57]

And what about having a right set of beliefs and not pleasing God?

To whom much is given much is expected. Having the right set of beliefs doesn’t guarantee living a life pleasing to God. Good point here.

For one who stresses that we will be judged by our love, rightly so, you seem to be even more decisive to be in a particular church, where right revelation is where it is at.

Truth is truth. Having right revelation is certainly advantageous. I think knowing the truth of God is certainly important. All in vain without love, of course. Having right heart is more important, sure. A right heart yearns and longs for truth I would say…in humility.

 

[mcq72]

Right you shouldn’t do that.

But you do

We need to remember that there’s only one faith. And it seems to me to be more than just a bit of obstinacy to not face that truth and question just where we might find it.

Yes, one faith, universal, in Christ…just that as soon as you exclusively insist where “it” is to be found, you are sectarian and no longer iniversal…Jesus is not an “it”.

I have often said some folks preach a Christ to be found who places you in the church, the body of Christ. Others preach an exclusive church, where you then find Jesus.

 

[mcq72]

A right heart yearns and longs for truth I would say…in humility.

Thank you for your post.

Also, even more specific, a right and humble heart seeks and longs for Christ, to know Him, who is Truth and Wisdom.

 

[Woodyl57]

Amen, brother. Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. We have these debates, I hope, because we all long to know Christ better in our imperfection and human limitations.

 

[fhansen]

But you do

No, you do so when you deny the true faith.

Yes, one faith, universal, in Christ…just that as soon as you exclusively insist where “it” is to be found, you are sectarian and no longer iniversal…Jesus is not an “it”.

The faith is a body of beliefs revealed to us by Jesus, as well as by those who followed Him and elaborated on the truths they were witness to. We believe in Him for a reason, based on what He said and did to reveal the nature and will of God. The Jesus you believe in is a somewhat skewed version of the real Jesus, not as skewed as your compatriots, the JWs, but skewed nonetheless as yours teaches some pretty off the wall-and harmful- stuff.

When you come to understand the concise teaching regarding our judgement to either heaven or hell, “At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love”, you will have finally come to know the real Jesus and His gospel better, much better.

I have often said some folks preach a Christ to be found who places you in the church, the body of Christ. Others preach an exclusive church, where you then find Jesus.

The proper understanding is that we need the Church in order to proclaim Christ so we may come to know and enter relationship with Him, and then to continue to help nurture and grow that relationship. As it has always and everywhere been.

 

[lanman87]

The proper understanding is that we need the Church in order to proclaim Christ so we may come to know and enter relationship with Him, and then to continue to help nurture and grow that relationship. As it has always and everywhere been.

Are you saying that doesn’t happen in the Baptist Church, Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church and so forth?..

 

[Wannano]

The proper understanding is that we need the Church in order to proclaim Christ so we may come to know and enter relationship with Him, and then to continue to help nurture and grow that relationship. As it has always and everywhere been.

You nailed it completely! That is the understanding I have had all my life.

 

[fhansen]

I stated the proper position. Not who does or doesn’t align with it.

 

[Wannano]

I have often said some folks preach a Christ to be found who places you in the church, the body of Christ. Others preach an exclusive church, where you then find Jesus.

This is so right on. And it is not only the CC that preaches exclusivity.