Yes, we all live by this jusitification. You have properly ordained, “divine’ elements” going wrong (bishops,councils), into heresy in those early struggles . Only a person not trying to seem “protestant” would deny the authority of scriptures as playing a big part in combating error, wher councils,even popes failed.
Amen, a bottom up movement, where each part of the Body must be personally enlightened.
Only to ecclesial communities established at the Reformation and afterwards.
We must be very cautious about reinforcing the deficient definition of the Church inherited by Christians after the Reformation. The nature of the Church was redefined by the Reformers to “the body of believers on earth”. This eliminates the divine elements of the Church, and those who have gone on before us in faith.
No, the Church is Holy and blameless, and cannot err.
Yes, specifically the comments reference civil authorities. But also the Apostolic instructions to shepherd the flock with gentleness implies that some perhaps were not.
This is the nature of the gift of infallibilty. The HS works through those who have been gifted and appointed to the task to guide the flock without error.
Neither of these fits the context.
No, Ben, you are confused. Human beings cannot be “divine elements” Only members of the Godhead are divine. Humans can only become partakers of the divine nature.
Certainly the Holy Scriptures are a source of inerrant and inspired authority to combat error.
Which part, that the HS guides individuals or the “church” ?
Now I am confused. I think by divine elements you mean the Godhead as you just posted. How does reformation exclude the participation of the Godhead in the church ? Where has reformation eliminated Christ as the Head ? Not sure where reformation said saints in heaven are not part of church, and if so ,how does that eliminate the Godhead from activity on church on earth ? I thought Godhead makes us holy and “incarnational”, not saints in heaven.
Again you dichotomize too much. Like rule # 1: she is perfect . rule # 2" when she (her members) is not perfect, refer to rule #1. At some point we reflect each other, the individual and the church we are part of. I get your point that the church is a perfect hospital but with patients being tended. I would just say the hospital itself has health barometer also, just as does the individual.
Well be careful for that is the question, the nature of His infallibility. He can not be put in a box that says when speaking ex-cathedra or when in council fashion. Everybody says , "thus sayeth the Lord (thru "us’’), and we know it ain’t always so.
The context of ordination was already covered and the apostle moved on to new topic from which he spoke of laying hands on. Reaffirmation or even physical contact can fit context.
Agree the HS leads to correct interpretation or understanding. No he does not contradict . He does go opposite though sometimes. In one testament circumcision is the pact . In the next, it is not necessary. Sometimes it may seem contrary but it may also be correction. The reformers did not think they were going against inspired understanding, but coming back to it. Just as they (Jews) thought Jesus was going against revealed understanding, but was really coming back to proper understanding.
Hi Gaunophore: I agree I meant that while the Church is made up of the individual as the body of the Church, it would be nothing unless it came from the Apostles who began the deposit of faith in which the CC is made up of. If it somehow referred to the Reformation belief I apologize.
The HS guides both, but the promise to be led into “all Truth” was made to the Church, not to any one person.
It does not, so there are many parts of the infallible doctrines of the faith present in Protestant ecclesial communities.
This happened when the authority established by Christ was set aside, and when “church” was redefined to eliminate the divine elements.
The doctrine of the communion of saints has been denied by many protestant groups. And even those who accept that the saints are in heaven with Christ do not believe that we can interact for the benefit of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth.
The Church is incarnational, just as Christ. She has a divine nature, and a human nature. Her divine nature is infallible, and her human nature suffers from all those things common to humanity.
Yes, no argument there. All I am saying is that the understanding of the infallible nature of the Church was lost during the Reformation, primarily because the idea of “church” was redefined, removing the authority appointed by Christ, along with a number of other elements.
21I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality. 22Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others; I Tim 5:22
lifting "sanctions’ off a backslidden brother too soon would be participating , even almost condoning the sin problem. Sin is sin . Don’t show partiality. As an example that is relevant today is the proper dealing with priests (pastors) and their sexual sins.
I agree, but there is absolutely no biblical or historical evidence that lifting sanctions off a backslidden brother has anything to do with the laying on of hands. The context here leaves little doubt it is a reference to ordination.
If this is the case, then you are in real trouble, since the Scriptures were produced by Sacred Tradition, preserved, protected, canonized and promulgated through Sacred Tradition. If you cannot trust hte Source, then where can you place your “faith”?
LOL.
The reason that Jesus gave the gift of infallibility to the Church is because people err. The gift of infalliblity protects the doctrine, not the people. Individuals can still fall into sin, but He guards the divine deposit of faith He has committed to the Church.
Consider this. Traditions (as the Church uses the term) are Traditions because they are found to be good and true.
True - the fact of a council does not validate…However, since scripture itself speaks to this authority…that is something quite different.
I would love to explore this a bit further…
When one says “churches and popes” are not inerrant…one needs to define this more clearly.
