One thing that we have in common-Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists and even low church Protestants, is that to one degree or another, we all accept the first 7 Ecumenical councils and the council at Jerusalem (Acts 15). The nature of the disputes that these councils addressed made them necessary and laid the foundation for what measures Christian Orthodoxy today and what is outside of it.
“one degree or another” is really not sufficient IMHO and is an underlying problem with the Protestant model. The first seven Ecumenical councils were teh One United and Universal Church Gathered under the protection and guidance ofthe Holy Spirit, just as much as the council in Acts 15 was. To only accept them in “degrees” is to only accept the Will of the Holy Spirit in degrees…
Not trying to pick a fight here, just trying to point out what accepting the Church councils, “to one degree or another”, implies.
I don’t see a necessity of a council to address something like Calvinism vs Arminianism and the like because they constitute theological speculation about how God has predestined humanity to salvation.
But so was the nature of Christ and the Trinity, “theological speculation” at the time.
When theological speculation causes problems with the peace of the church, potential danger to souls from false teaching, and possible Schism, they need to be addressed.
Calvinism, predestination and it’s attendant OSAS attitude can and does endanger souls.
Well yes and no. When held ministerial credentials with the Assemblies of God, I had to be tested on church teachings and polity and submit myself to them. If I disagreed I could only do so privately. If I wanted to represent that organization as a minister, I had to accept that organizations authority over me. I couldn’t just say “well this is what I think the Bible says so you are wrong and I don’t have to listen to you” .
As you say - Yes and no.
Yes you had to agree so long as you wanted to be a minister in the Assemblies of God.
But if you said No to them and did not listen to them, you were not “treated as a tax collector” and expelled from The Church. You would lose your standing in the “Assemblies” of God church, but you would still consider yourself a Christian and a member of Christ’s church universal right?
So all you do then is look for another community that agreed with your view of Scripture, plop down in a pew and feel completely at home and justified.
And of course if you didn’t find a community that matched you belief, there is nothing in the Protestant model that prevents you from starting one.
Do you see how quickly Mt 18:15-18 and Acts 15 break down in the Protestant model? This is the weakness that I refer to.
Not at all. When a Catholic takes it to The Church, they usually begin by local discussions that might involve a few folks, some talking and maybe some writing. The local Bishop might becoem involved as necessary, various churh documents trotted out and reviewed/discussed etc looking for a difinitive answer or take on a matter.
Usually this is enough.
If it is not and the issue spread, then more bishops become involved and eventually the curia and the Holy See might take up the matter. Then, after MORE discussion and MORE communciation among the various parties (taking council with one another) AND delving into historical teachings and viewpoints, the Holy See may issue a new teaching or modify or clarify an existing one.
That sounds alot like what would happen in a Protestant church, see my example above.
Yes I know that this is familiar to protestants on certain levels, but they cannot make it work in the way Christ intended, instructed and demonstrated in the NT.
In Protestant circles, when an issue is hashed out (say in the Assemblies of God), they might promulgate this teaching to other AOG churches in the community or region but their viewpoint carries no weight with other denominations, or other regions or nations.
This is tantamount to the results of Acts 15 only applying to the church at Antioch and not to other cities, or only applying to those judaizers who were willing to submit to the council… The others could set up their own communites without regard or submission to anyone else.
Could you imagine St Paul’s response to such an attempt?
Translation here is key, in the NIV, its says “it seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us” making it sound like the Apostles were simply submitting to the Spirits will.
Well either translation will do. In any case, the council was under the protection of the Holy spirit, as promised by Christ, just as subsequent councils were.
The CC basically says today that they believe they have the fullness of truth. I don’t fault a church to believing that-for believing they things they believe. No problem there. I also applaud the church for their position on Protestants, which is far more charitable than what some low church Protestants/fundementalists say about them. I think they have reached out well without compromising what they believe about the nature of the church. I mean when was the last time a Catholic bishop was invited to speak at the Southern Baptist convention?
Thank you for your kind words about The Church.
(cont)
