The Unknown Christianity

[JRKH]

You say there is a need for an overeaching authority to settle doctrinal questions. There is a problem with that. Authority is gained in two ways. One way, people of their own free will submit to the authority as they respect it and want it. The other way the authority is enfored is by physical force on those that do not want it. The laws of all countries are like this. Like wise if the church was to be an authority on doctine it we would have to go back to what it was like before the protestant reformation (and we sure don’t want to do that).

Christianity shines forth much brighter today in our present time than it did when the Catholic Church ruled with an iron fist.

There is no need to “Go Back” to the type of temporal authority excerized in the pre-reformation days. We couldn’t even if we wanted to. The world is different and the Church is different. The Church is no longer a temporal power. So your comparison is apples and oranges.

What you speak of above is not authority but power, and there are those, in any group, who seek “Power” and once they have it abuse it, but that is not the same thing as authority as Christ Gave His Church in Mt 16 and Mt 18. So when I speak of Authority, it is in this context, and not the context of personal power, which is what you, in your denomination, fear, taking great pains to prevent the concentration of power.
Christ also tells us that such authority is to be excerized in service to others. The same thing that you and I espouse. Thus we look for leaders who will serve in offices of leadership in that humble service that Christ taught.

If you look at the Catholic Church today, indeed in the last century or more, you can see in the structure and the leadership that there is no real chance for the Church to excerize the type of temporal authority seen in previous centuries. You can also see, especially in the last century a greater outreach by the Church to her seperated bretheren - The Ecumenical Spirit.

(Cont)

 

[JRKH]

(Cont)

All is well with the many denominations. God knows who are His own. His sheep hear His voice.

Yes, I suppose you can say that, “all is well with the many denominations”, so long as you are willing to ignore Mt 18:15-18 and allow others to sin by teaching errant doctrines such as OSAS. So long as you think that the souls lost by this superficial and unloving doctrine are acceptable I suppose that you can truly say that, all is well with the many non-authoritative denominations.

But no - I cannot accept that. Christ clearly prayed that we be one - One as He and the Father are one. That does not mean a bunch of different groups teaching conflicting doctrines and all claiming divine revelation with no way to resolve the differences.
You see - That is the key here.
I am not opposed to diversity of spiritualities within the body of Christ. Nor am I opposed to you looking at things differently than I do. Obviously you and I have demonstrated that we can discuss and debate things on a high level because we do so in Christian Love - seeking understanding instead of confrontation.
However there comes a time when discussions may reach an impasse. Where, dispite our good wills and Loving intentions, we just cannot resolve our differences by reference to the Bible or any other authoritative document. It is at this point then that we, as Loving Christians must make recourse to the Authority Christ designated for our use:

Mt 18:17-18 …"17 If he refuses to listen to them, **tell it to the church **; and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be as a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

So long as I live and believe in The Word of God who is Jesus Christ, I will never be able to see anything in the above passage that denies the establishement of One "Church’ with “Authority”, from Christ Himself to ,“Bind and loose” .
Such a Church, having such universal authority from Christ, naturally needs structure, just as you conceded earlier in reference to early heresies. That authority and structure provides the central repository of Apostolic teaching, writings etc. and a venue for the discussion and resolution of differences, thus maintianing the unity that Christ prayed for and preventing the introduction of such dangerous doctrines as OSAS as well as the splintering seen under the non-authoritative system employed by protestant communites.

I will not deny that good has come from the Reformation, but such good is short lived and can only result, as it has, in larger confusion among the faithful.
Earlier you credited the Church authority as necessary to combat heresies such as the Gnostics. Yet you don’t feel that authority is necessary today to fight, and correct, the errant teaching of OSAS.
Why do you think it is not necessary? You claim above that, in spite of the plethora of denominations, “God knows who are His own. His sheep hear His voice”, yet wasn’t the same thing true at the time of the Gnostic heresy or the Arian heresy? Wouldn’t God Know his own in those divergent groups? So why should they have been opposed by an authoritative Church and heresies today not opposed? So why the difference today? Why was authoritative unity good then but not good now?
Do you say that is because we have the Bible and the Holy Spirit to Guide Us? Yet it is from this same Bible and by the invocation of this same Holy Spirit that people preach error such as the doctrine of OSAS.
Do you say it is because "God knows His own? Well God has known His own throughout time. He knew them among the Gnostics and among the Arians.

No - While I can appreciate your viewpoint on diversity, such diversity cannot remain properly focused without some sort of overriding, final say, authority.
Now, for the sake of discussion, I won’t even put out the structure of the Catholic Church as the only option. (I believe the LDS church is highly centralized and uses a council of 12 as it’s highest authority) Yet regardless of the form it were to take, some universally accepted authority is necessary.

Off my soapbox

Peace
James

 

[Seeker100]

(Cont)

No - While I can appreciate your viewpoint on diversity, such diversity cannot remain properly focused without some sort of overriding, final say, authority.
Now, for the sake of discussion, I won’t even put out the structure of the Catholic Church as the only option. (I believe the LDS church is highly centralized and uses a council of 12 as it’s highest authority) Yet regardless of the form it were to take, some universally accepted authority is necessary.

Off my soapbox

Peace
James

About 2000 years ago we all know the most amazing thing happened in human history. God took the form of a man and came to earth. God physically, in our history, came into our physical world to a location that exists. God physically coming into our world establishes the Kingdom of Heaven, as now man can physically serve God. Before that time man could not, even if they wished. Now with God having come into the physical world it is possible for man to physically serve Him in every human being on earth. This is the Kingdom of Heaven, it is man coming to the Father through the Son.

The truth that Jesus; is God, came to the Jewish people, taught, was crucified and then rose from the dead is central to all Christian doctrine. It is central to establishing the Kingdom of God on earth. The truth, of the events of the time of Jesus, and who Jesus is, had to be preserved. It was difficult as there were not mass printing presses and communication. The early established institutional church had thus to form an authoritarian structure to preserve this truth of Jesus. If someone came along and said, “Jesus is not God” or “Jesus did not come in the flesh” or “Jesus was never actually crucified” or any number of stories that contradict the truth of Jesus and His life the church had to step in with authority and point out what is true about Jesus and what is not.

When asked by people of the time, how they were to know if the established Christian view was correct or the Gnostic view was correct, the Christian church could point out that they received their doctrine from the early deciples and early followers of Jesus Himself. Thus they could reaffirm that their version of Jesus was the true version.

This authoritarian nature was necessary to preserve this truth and it succeeded. The documentations of Jesus’ life is so established, that they can never be changed. The bible is permanent. Nobody can ever change it even if they want to. This stability of what the early deciples believed happened to Jesus and what Jesus is, is now permanent. It has been permanent for many many years.

This authoritarian nature of the Church however brought in corruption. Although it is their duty to show the revealed knowledge of who Jesus is and what happened to Him they over step their bounds whey they come between man and his relationship with God. When the institutional church steps in as a mediator between man and God it oversteps its authority. When the church says that its position must be followed over what God says in the individual’s heart then the institutional church has over stepped its bounds of authority and corruption has entered.

The Protestant reformation was a rebellion against this. It was not a rebellion against the story of Jesus or Jesus being God, it was a rebellion against the church authority. They were trying to bring it in check. Thus we have today the many groups with their various set ups in church structure and beliefs about the sacraments. In some denominations the word church is not used as the word church is only in reference to the universal Kingdom of God. Thus for some denominations their gathering is called a hall or a meeting. The sacraments to a large extent (I realize there are exceptions) are reduced to symbolic or non existant. The church leaders are (if they exist) are not priests they are ministers. Protestant denominational authority is now for the most part not the denomination but the individual’s interpretation of what God says to him in his heart and in the bible.

Thus this Catholic idea that Protestants should come back and be under an institutional authority is to many in their view (and mine) corruption and turning one’s back on one’s following of God. God in our hearts is our authority on all moral issues and decisions. It is God in our heart that that decides moral issues such as birth control, homosexuality, masturbation, pornography, stem cell research, abortion, military enrolement, working on Sunday, understanding of the sacraments, understanding of the bible and everything else that arises in one’s life.

To many in Protestant denominations their denominations to them are a victory against the corruption of having a church authority instead of what they believe is God’s authority in thier hearts and in the bible. Coming under the authority of the Roman Catholic church in this view would be immoral and repulsive.

This, as I have said before, is not the splitting, of body of Christ. True unity in Christ is spiritual. It not through denominations or churches. It is through union with the almighty, who is Love.

 

[JRKH]

The dissertaion below is well put. Is it your own work? If so I congratulate you.
Of cours you won’t mind if I take a couple of exceptions to statements and/or conclusions.

About 2000 years ago we all know the most amazing thing happened in human history. God took the form of a man and came to earth. God physically, in our history, came into our physical world to a location that exists. God physically coming into our world establishes the Kingdom of Heaven, as now man can physically serve God. Before that time man could not, even if they wished. Now with God having come into the physical world it is possible for man to physically serve Him in every human being on earth. This is the Kingdom of Heaven, it is man coming to the Father through the Son.

The truth that Jesus; is God, came to the Jewish people, taught, was crucified and then rose from the dead is central to all Christian doctrine. It is central to establishing the Kingdom of God on earth. The truth, of the events of the time of Jesus, and who Jesus is, had to be preserved. It was difficult as there were not mass printing presses and communication. The early established institutional church had thus to form an authoritarian structure to preserve this truth of Jesus. ** If someone came along and said, “Jesus is not God” or “Jesus did not come in the flesh” or “Jesus was never actually crucified” or any number of stories that contradict the truth of Jesus and His life the church had to step in with authority and point out what is true about Jesus and what is not.**

And yet today there are sects and faiths who teach the very things you mention. One teaches that Jesus was not "God’, another says He was St Michael the Archangel, still another, Islam, says Jesus was not Crucified. Add to these the many other false teachings that have come along from the early days and you still feel there is not need for overarching authority among the many denominations?
The advent of the printing press and mass communications have not made it any easier to keep the truth safe. Just look at the effect of the internet in our own times. How much misinformation, falsehoods, and evil is on the web. Has the internet made the Truth safer? Has it made God’s message safer?
The same thing happened in the 1500’s. When the Printing press first became popular most anyone who could read and write could have something published and distributed whether it was good ot not, true or not.

When asked by people of the time, how they were to know if the established Christian view was correct or the Gnostic view was correct, the Christian church could point out that they received their doctrine from the early deciples and early followers of Jesus Himself. Thus they could reaffirm that their version of Jesus was the true version.

This authoritarian nature was necessary to preserve this truth and it succeeded. The documentations of Jesus’ life is so established, that they can never be changed. The bible is permanent. Nobody can ever change it even if they want to. This stability of what the early deciples believed happened to Jesus and what Jesus is, is now permanent. It has been permanent for many many years.

And yet, even with all of the supposed permentant and stable documentation, what has the protestant reformation achieved? A more loving Chrisitan community? Not if the gist of your OP is to be believed. A more fair Chrisitanity? Not if we look at the history of the colonial countries, Protestant as well as Catholic, over the last 500 years. A more doctrinally united Christianity all being led by the Same Spirit of God? Not if we look at all of the variations and conflicts in doctrines.
No - I’m afraid that the “documentations” are not sufficent since they have been subject to twisting and “reinterpretation” by whoever pleases to do so.

This authoritarian nature of the Church however brought in corruption. Although it is their duty to show the revealed knowledge of who Jesus is and what happened to Him they over step their bounds whey they come between man and his relationship with God. When the institutional church steps in as a mediator between man and God it oversteps its authority. When the church says that its position must be followed over what God says in the individual’s heart then the institutional church has over stepped its bounds of authority and corruption has entered.

And yet, as I have pointed out to you, it was Jesus Himslef who gave the authority to the Apostles to “Bind and Loose”. To act in His stead. to teach and to protect the His teachings. He did not give it to a book, he gave it to men - imperfect sinful men, by the way, as Peter’s betrayal and James’ and Johns’ ambition demonstrates.
(cont)

 

[JRKH]

(From above)

The Protestant reformation was a rebellion against this. It was not a rebellion against the story of Jesus or Jesus being God, it was a rebellion against the church authority. They were trying to bring it in check.

The Protestant reformation was not a rebellion against authority, it was against what it saw as abuses. The placing of material things ahead of God. In this they were, at least to an extent justified. Just as justified as many other great churchmen and woment who, in years prior to the reformation, called the Church to task for worldy ways. Such saints as St Terese of Avila and St Francis of Assisi and St Catherine of Sienna. All of these also fought against corruption in the Church, but did not need to split from the Church in order to be effective.

Thus we have today the many groups with their various set ups in church structure and beliefs about the sacraments. In some denominations the word church is not used as the word church is only in reference to the universal Kingdom of God. Thus for some denominations their gathering is called a hall or a meeting. The sacraments to a large extent (I realize there are exceptions) are reduced to symbolic or non existant. The church leaders are (if they exist) are not priests they are ministers.

And so - The very thing that you praise the early Church for when you say:
the Christian church could point out that they received their doctrine from the early deciples and early followers of Jesus Himself. Thus they could reaffirm that their version of Jesus was the true version.
That is, the preservation of the beliefs of the early disciples, Is the very thing you have no problem with being distorted and discarded by post reformation ecclesial communities. Things like sacraments. The real presence in the Eucharist. The priesthood. All held and taught by the Early Church and now discarded.
How odd I must say.

Protestant denominational authority is now for the most part not the denomination but the individual’s interpretation of what God says to him in his heart and in the bible.

With no real check to prevent his being led astray by the evil one, the evil one who was quite adept at quoting scripture in an attempt to trip up Jesus Himself. Or do you think that every person reading the Bible today is on a par in their understanding of scripture with the Son of God.

Thus this Catholic idea that Protestants should come back and be under an institutional authority is to many in their view (and mine) corruption and turning one’s back on one’s following of God. God in our hearts is our authority on all moral issues and decisions. It is God in our heart that that decides moral issues such as birth control, homosexuality, masturbation, pornography, stem cell research, abortion, military enrolement, working on Sunday, understanding of the sacraments, understanding of the bible and everything else that arises in one’s life.

To many in Protestant denominations their denominations to them are a victory against the corruption of having a church authority instead of what they believe is God’s authority in thier hearts and in the bible. Coming under the authority of the Roman Catholic church in this view would be immoral and repulsive.

And many are falling victim to their own “victory”. Yes they believe “God’s Authority” as revealed in The Bible. They believe it so well that they believe Homosexuality - rejected by the Bible - should now be approved of. They believe that Abortion, the killing of innocent children, - rejected by the Bible - should be approved of…
That the narrow road which Christ spoke of with the caution that, “few find it”, should be widened and paved and made smooth. Yet we know what Jesus told us the wide road leads to.
Few who interpret the bible on their own find what you found, that is the quaker way - The way of Love and service. Others have found OSAS and SDA and JW and LDS. Each trumpeting and triumphing in their “victory” over the supposed “corruption” of nearly 2000 years of careful preservation of the teachings, not only of Christ and the Apostles in the Bible, but the ECF’s, and the Great Saints, and Church councils.

If the Protestant Leaders had, by their principles of Sola Scriptura and individual interpretation, succeeded in the development of a single (or even a couple of) alternative “Church” where humble cooperation, prayerful reflection, unified effort and nearly identical teaching held sway then I could say that perhaps the Holy Spirit was at work in them and Sola Scriptura was a solid belief.
However - Given that splits and infighting appeared from the very beginning among the original “reformers” and have not stopped to this day, I find it hard for anyone to believe that such fracturing is of God.

This, as I have said before, is not the splitting, of body of Christ. True unity in Christ is spiritual. It not through denominations or churches. It is through union with the almighty, who is Love.

And in this my friend you will find me in complete agreement. I like a simple faith, based upon the two Great commandments and nourished by the sacraments and teachings of Christ’s own original and authoritative Church.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Seeker,
As much as I have enjoyed our discussion I feel that I am really about done.
I want to thank you for your insight. It has helped me to understand even better how lucky I am to be Catholic and also to be a member of CAF where I get to meet so many wonderful people such as yourself. I mean that sincerely.
I have always held a special place in my heart for the Quaker view. In fact before I returned to the church, I took a “quiz” over at beliefnet and it seems my outlook fits very closely with the Quaker outlook. I took this as a compliment. What made it even nicer was that, when I returned to The Church, I found I didnt have to alter my sprituality. It was all there in the Catholic Church, except of course for the fear of authority.

Good night and…

Peace
James

 

[Seeker100]

Seeker,
As much as I have enjoyed our discussion I feel that I am really about done.
I want to thank you for your insight. It has helped me to understand even better how lucky I am to be Catholic and also to be a member of CAF where I get to meet so many wonderful people such as yourself. I mean that sincerely.
I have always held a special place in my heart for the Quaker view. In fact before I returned to the church, I took a “quiz” over at beliefnet and it seems my outlook fits very closely with the Quaker outlook. I took this as a compliment. What made it even nicer was that, when I returned to The Church, I found I didnt have to alter my sprituality. It was all there in the Catholic Church, except of course for the fear of authority.

Good night and…

Peace
James

Yes I believe that we have covered the topic of Catholic authority quite thoroughly and neither of us was suspended or banned, so that is quite an achievement!

Basically it boils down to two opposite views on what Jesus intended for the institutional church.

One view is that He set up an institution (Catholic Church), that not only spreads the truth of who He is and what happened to Him, but also is God’s authority on earth in resolving doctinal differences and moral issues. Members of this view support it through their interpretation of scripture and history.

The other view is that Jesus did not set up an institution (Catholic Church) to be the authority of doctine and moral issues. Members of this view support it through their interpretation of scipture and history.

These two views are opposite and can never be reconcilled. Thus we have the Catholic - Protestant split. Jesus however is alive and working through those whom obey Him.

Jesus is constantly expanding His Kingdom of spiritual unification of man and God. This Kingdom is forever and is always growing. It is the Kingdom of Life! It is the Kingdom of Love! Unfortunately its path is very unknown. A born again man serves Jesus in everyone he or she meets. Jesus is in everyone as Jesus is the love for the individual. Man comes to his true self when he meets and serves the creator in his neighbour.

Tony Campolo writes, “I do not mean that others represent Jesus for us. I mean that Jesus actually is present in each other person.”

We are so blessed to be able to have a living relationship with the Creator of all.