-
-
-
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join Hidden in Him and For His Glory for discussions on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/become-a-vessel-of-honor-part-2.112306/
-
-
-
-
Why Ecumenical Creeds Should Be Dropped
- Thread starter Enow
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #62
And the Bible did not make those creeds nor did anyone had written a letter to the churches stating an oral or written creed to recite and to live by.
But as in any church: long standing practises of what one has been raised on are the hardest to prune no matter if the scripture points out errors in them and state that any such agreement between opposing body of believers should be dropped.
1 Corinthians 1:9God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. 10Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
All the denomenations are not speaking the same thing and so the creeds are out because they are all saying the creed as if agreeing that they are all of the same mind and speak the same thing when they do not.
So once again: the OP stands, but only God can convict through His words.
2 Corinthians 6:14Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. 18And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Standing apart from creeds that Catholics claims as their own is the call. Our love towards our erring brothers and sisters requires that in defense of the faith.
Ephesians 4:12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: 16From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
Former Christian
Member
- Jun 2, 2011
- 839
- 0
Francis
“And don't even try to voice your opinion in so many words that this is a stupid interpretation.â€
I wrote that on purpose. I was hoping you would react and your reaction is totally expected. Even your reaction in relation to my claim to be a relativist. Your reaction reveals that when you say the Church, you mean the Roman Church. Even to Enow, “Look to yourself before you take the hatchet to the Churchâ€, is a reference to the Roman Church in your mind. How you interpret the Bible is according to the Roman Church. I wanted you to react in such a way as to make that perfectly clear to everyone reading here. And you did. Thanks.
In my view, there’s no such thing as a universal Church. There are only local ekklesia. There is a big difference between the ekklesia the New Testament describes and the Churches of Christianity. And I understand the New Testament accordingly. I don’t expect anyone who is under denominational thinking, which includes the idea that there’s a universal aspect to the Church, to agree with me at all.
Each ekklesia is intended to be an expression of that which is universal. The Body of Christ because Jesus is the head of the Body (Eph 1). The Temple because it’s the residence of God himself (Eph 2). The Kingdom of the Son because it’s the Son who is the only Lord in each ekklesia. And an expression of all of the other ways universality is revealed in the New Testament. 1 Cor is written to a local ekklesia. 1 Tim is written to Timothy who is at a local ekklesia. The context of both is a local ekklesia, not a universal Church.
So how I understand 1 Tim isn’t ridiculous from my point of view. The idea that a local ekklesia is the pillar and foundation of truth would be wacky to me. But from the perspective of one who believes in the idea of a universal Church, the idea that the universal Church is the pillar and foundation of truth on the earth isn’t wacky at all. But it does show that such a Church is human in nature even though it claims a source from the supernatural.
Your response here has been what’s expected. You could respond in no other way. It wasn’t my intention to attack the Roman Church as you always seem to perceive of everyone and react accordingly. And in regard to some Protestants, you may be right. I merely disagree with the idea, that began in germ form in the second century from what I’ve read of their writings we still have today, that there is a universal Church, what you call “the Churchâ€. Those who wrote the New Testament didn’t have that idea. Since by the fourth century, the idea of universality was already prevalent, it’s one of the reasons that I don’t agree with the idea that “the Churchâ€, meaning the Roman Church from the viewpoint of a Roman Catholic, gave us the Bible.
But this is off topic. And to give it some continuity with the topic, how one views the Church will determine how one views the matter of Creeds. The common idea is that the Church is a mixture of the human and the Divine. And from that viewpoint, the idea that what is of human derivation is a part of the overall expression of the Church.
This is seen in it’s fullest expression in the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. Some Protestants try to limit the human by being against icons or statues or crucifixes in the Church building. But so long as they still use creeds and hymnals, they really haven’t limited much. They’ve just managed to reverse progressive historical development in Christianity a little, that’s all. If one is going to use the humanly derived in Churches, there is no reason to deny the use of statues as representative of Christ or loved saints of the past or the crucifix as representative of the basis of our baptism. The fact that some misuse such articles, such as praying to the statue itself is no reason to discount their use. What I represent is common sense. If one is going to go against the use of creeds, then one should take it to it’s logical conclusion and go against every humanly derived object in the Church. I used the hymnal as an example. It’s as humanly derived as a creed. But the one who started this thread objects. That to me is an inconsistency.
Nevertheless, Francis, what I really want you to respond to is my post in the thread “Significance of the Last Supperâ€. The Roman Church practices closed communion. I want your response to what I said there from the viewpoint of that practice.
FC
“And don't even try to voice your opinion in so many words that this is a stupid interpretation.â€
I wrote that on purpose. I was hoping you would react and your reaction is totally expected. Even your reaction in relation to my claim to be a relativist. Your reaction reveals that when you say the Church, you mean the Roman Church. Even to Enow, “Look to yourself before you take the hatchet to the Churchâ€, is a reference to the Roman Church in your mind. How you interpret the Bible is according to the Roman Church. I wanted you to react in such a way as to make that perfectly clear to everyone reading here. And you did. Thanks.
In my view, there’s no such thing as a universal Church. There are only local ekklesia. There is a big difference between the ekklesia the New Testament describes and the Churches of Christianity. And I understand the New Testament accordingly. I don’t expect anyone who is under denominational thinking, which includes the idea that there’s a universal aspect to the Church, to agree with me at all.
Each ekklesia is intended to be an expression of that which is universal. The Body of Christ because Jesus is the head of the Body (Eph 1). The Temple because it’s the residence of God himself (Eph 2). The Kingdom of the Son because it’s the Son who is the only Lord in each ekklesia. And an expression of all of the other ways universality is revealed in the New Testament. 1 Cor is written to a local ekklesia. 1 Tim is written to Timothy who is at a local ekklesia. The context of both is a local ekklesia, not a universal Church.
So how I understand 1 Tim isn’t ridiculous from my point of view. The idea that a local ekklesia is the pillar and foundation of truth would be wacky to me. But from the perspective of one who believes in the idea of a universal Church, the idea that the universal Church is the pillar and foundation of truth on the earth isn’t wacky at all. But it does show that such a Church is human in nature even though it claims a source from the supernatural.
Your response here has been what’s expected. You could respond in no other way. It wasn’t my intention to attack the Roman Church as you always seem to perceive of everyone and react accordingly. And in regard to some Protestants, you may be right. I merely disagree with the idea, that began in germ form in the second century from what I’ve read of their writings we still have today, that there is a universal Church, what you call “the Churchâ€. Those who wrote the New Testament didn’t have that idea. Since by the fourth century, the idea of universality was already prevalent, it’s one of the reasons that I don’t agree with the idea that “the Churchâ€, meaning the Roman Church from the viewpoint of a Roman Catholic, gave us the Bible.
But this is off topic. And to give it some continuity with the topic, how one views the Church will determine how one views the matter of Creeds. The common idea is that the Church is a mixture of the human and the Divine. And from that viewpoint, the idea that what is of human derivation is a part of the overall expression of the Church.
This is seen in it’s fullest expression in the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. Some Protestants try to limit the human by being against icons or statues or crucifixes in the Church building. But so long as they still use creeds and hymnals, they really haven’t limited much. They’ve just managed to reverse progressive historical development in Christianity a little, that’s all. If one is going to use the humanly derived in Churches, there is no reason to deny the use of statues as representative of Christ or loved saints of the past or the crucifix as representative of the basis of our baptism. The fact that some misuse such articles, such as praying to the statue itself is no reason to discount their use. What I represent is common sense. If one is going to go against the use of creeds, then one should take it to it’s logical conclusion and go against every humanly derived object in the Church. I used the hymnal as an example. It’s as humanly derived as a creed. But the one who started this thread objects. That to me is an inconsistency.
Nevertheless, Francis, what I really want you to respond to is my post in the thread “Significance of the Last Supperâ€. The Roman Church practices closed communion. I want your response to what I said there from the viewpoint of that practice.
FC
Hi FormerChristian
I agree with you except I believe the scripture teaches the universal church. When I say that I do not include any denomination nor do I include the Roman Catholic Church in it as none of them existed in the NT day, nor did they until years later. Only the NT church existed, both locally and in its universal sense of the local congregations collectively.
I agree with you except I believe the scripture teaches the universal church. When I say that I do not include any denomination nor do I include the Roman Catholic Church in it as none of them existed in the NT day, nor did they until years later. Only the NT church existed, both locally and in its universal sense of the local congregations collectively.
- Apr 2, 2003
- 22,801
- 6,114
This shows a serious error in understanding what the Bible's purpose is. Unfortunately it is all too common. The error is that if something isn't specifically mentioned in the Bible then it is unbiblical and should be abandoned. But that belief in itself isn't taught in the Bible and so it is self-refuting.Enow said:
The Bible is a guide for the Christian walk, a standard by which we measure all else. What it is not is a fully comprehensive summation of all that we are to do, experience, or believe.
There is nothing wrong with Creeds or hymnals unless one makes idols out of them. But if they are used for the purposes for which they were made, then they can help one get closer, and stay closer, to God.
francisdesales
Member
- Aug 10, 2006
- 7,793
- 4
You really think you know me, but you don't... If this was some grand plan, it has backfired, as we will discover in much greater detail...
I have a broader view in mind and have advertised that here on many occasions, before the Moderators get involved. Those who are validly baptized are part of the Catholic Church, in some mysterious way - this is according to the Catholic Church's own dogmatic statements. The Creed itself expresses this in the phrase after "one holy catholic and apostolic Church" - "I believe in one baptsim for the forgiveness of sins". Those who are baptized as such are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Why are we even mentioning "Rome" in context with Catholicism, anyways? There are many rites of Catholicism that are not Latin/Roman... Roman is one of many types of Catholicism and we hardly ever identify ourselves as such.
There is only ONE universal Catholic Church established by Christ, with one faith, one baptism and all worshipping one Lord. My "separated" brothers remain my brothers, even if our ECCLESIASTICAL community is different, and we remain part of the same Church, in different manners. I have stated before that being an ecclesiastical Catholic provides me access to more of God's gifts, but it doesn't make me any better unless I utilize those gifts, such as the Lord's Table or confession to God through the sacrament of Confession.
I find it interesting that you think you know my mind, but clearly, you don't. I have expressed this concept numerous times on this forum, and those who know me better can vouch for this. I am expressing the Catholic Church's concepts on "Church" as per Vatican 2, which is really the continuation of what was taking place at Vatican 1 before the Council was forced to close.
You are making yourself look foolish when you pretend to know my mind. Clearly, you are not familiar with how the CAtholic Church sees itself. In addition, I defended the idea of Creeds for any and ALL Christians. Enow is trying to tear down the idea of creeds IN GENERAL. Many Christians utilize Creeds, and removing them is a hatchet job on the Catholic Church, which includes the individuals baptized and living in other communities of faith.
Perhaps it is time you consider that the Catholic Church sees itself as something beyond those who sit in the pews at "St. Francis de Sales Church of Los Angeles, USA".
I interpret the Scriptures just as Christians have for 2000 years, to include those of the first Christian communities. There was no such thing as "sola scriptura". This is modern man's attempt to sever the Bible's authoritative verses from their root. WHY indeed does Jesus tell Peter to "feed my sheep", IF we interpret the Bible for ourselves? Look at the results. People don't even know that the Spirit of God or Jesus Himself is God... This is what happens when people read the Bible, unguided, to their destruction...
LOL! You don't believe that, since later, you will say otherwise...
Your view is clearly wrong. There is only one faith, one Lord, one baptism. Every local community does not have its own faith, its own baptism, and worship God in the manner of their own choosing and invention. The followers of Christ in Rome, Corinth, Ephesus and Thessalonica believed the same thing on doctrinal matters. They entered the Church the same way - through the doors of Baptism. They didn't have to learn an entirely new religion if they moved to another locale.
The very EXISTENCE of the CATHOLIC - universal - Church proves you wrong.
How so? Because we have cell phones and access to computers so we can read the Bible whenever we want?
Which you say doesn't exist. How can there be an expression of something that doesn't exist? Are you a bit confused?
What you give with the left, you take away with the right. Your theology cannot stand on its own because it contradicts itself. There is only ONE Spirit that inhabits the Church, not different Spirits that inhabit the ekklesia of Rome, or Corinth or Ephesus. Paul writes to specific communities, but for 2000 years, Catholics, to include my separated brothers, have applied the verses written to Corinth in 50 AD to apply to THEM SELVES as WELL!!! IF Paul is writing ONLY for Corinth, then Christians of today should not bother reading the letters to the Corinthians, since they only apply to them, the local ekklesia. Clearly, your viewpoint is wrong and no one will follow it to its logical conclusion.
People are often blind to the problems that they foist upon Scriptures when they think they know the mind of God without the Church's guidance.
I have laid out the problems with your viewpoint in this and my last post. It is patently ridiculous because it is internally contradictory. It claims to express something that doesn't even exist. Bravo.
Indeed. Ridiculous, so might even say. ;)
Again, I agree, if one "FC" didn't make the claim that the universal Church doesn't even exist! Wacky, ridiculous. Whatever... There seems to be a disconnect here.
The Church is the Body of Christ, is it not? And is not the Body of Christ both human and divine as per the Incarnation??? Do you REALLY believe that the Son of God took on flesh? It appears that you think He only appeared to (sorry for the pun...)
The Church is human and divine, just as her pioneer is, Jesus Christ.
The Church's claim to holiness rests entirely upon God, according to His promises. We believe His promises, since He has proven Himself a Faithful God Who can be trusted.
Kind of busy, this post is enough for me. But I will leave you with this to think about:
It is not surprising, since many SECULAR organizations practice closed communion, as well. True? Perhaps your answer will be forthcoming if you reflect on why the VFW or other such clubs don't allow just anyone in off the streets to be members. Why do they practice "closed communion" and what is their reasoning?
Regards
francisdesales
Member
- Aug 10, 2006
- 7,793
- 4
And WHAT EXACTLY is given by CHRIST "for the perfecting of the saints"?!! You conviently left out verse 11. Note it doesn't say "Bible", does it.
I totally agree with your second sentence I cite here, which is why I even bother to post here. However, I am happy to report that many of my separated brothers are really not that separate, after all.
Regards
jasoncran
Member
- May 17, 2009
- 38,271
- 185
sheesh i am not a catholic in practice and see what that post is all about. even the calvinist pastor listend did a sermon on what francis said and said the church was to be visible we arent to be invidualists.
funny, i learned that in an military save with few exception individualism doesnt work. its all team and teamwork is needed. the mechanic cant go out and kill on the same truck or tank the tankers or cav do.neither can they use their vehicles without being maintained they need each other. why is it that we expect the body of christ to work so much different.God does raise up pastors and teachers these days?
funny, i learned that in an military save with few exception individualism doesnt work. its all team and teamwork is needed. the mechanic cant go out and kill on the same truck or tank the tankers or cav do.neither can they use their vehicles without being maintained they need each other. why is it that we expect the body of christ to work so much different.God does raise up pastors and teachers these days?
- Thread starter
- #69
As the Bible is a guide for our christian walk: the creeds are not and some of the hymnals are not.
Errors has been introduced in the Nicene creed, and even though while glossing over certain reference to an authoritative "holy" singular Church that the RCC claims as referring to them, ( Indeed, a brother that is a Catholic claimed both of those creeds as Catholic in this thread. ) a practise has been suggested and does indeed go against what scripture declares what the Holy Spirit will lead believers to do & not do: all the while including the error of giving the title of the Giver of Life to the Holy Spirit when Jesus is the Giver of Life: that is His glory as the Saviour.
See post 28 of this thread on page 2 for the scriptural reproof:
2 Corinthians 6:14-18 is not something to be seen as not applicable to the creeds when the RCC agrees with the creed but not speaking the same thing in meaning the same thing as what they claim it to be: thus the need to stand apart from that creed. It is for their sake as a witness to them out of love to those that oppose themselves.
It is time to wake up and examine by His grace and by His help the things we do and the words we say because the witness of the Good News is losing its distinction in these ecumenical creeds.
- Thread starter
- #70
Here you go: and while you are reading this again: how are these offices doing this job?
Ephesians 4:11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: 16From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
This is how those in the offices are perfecting the saints:
2 Timothy 3:14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
John 14:23Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
John 8:30As he spake these words, many believed on him. 31Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
- Thread starter
- #71
What is the fruit of a false prophet?
Matthew 7: 13Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. 15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
So the fruit of the false prophet is ecumenical in nature as gathering grapes of thorns and figs of thistles.
The creeds in according the scripture are doing that.
The false prophet will broaden the way in coming to God the Father other than by way of the Son.
Wayward believers can claim this as happening in their church:
Matthew 7:21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
What denomenational church is famous for casting out devils?
What denomenational church is deviating from the commandment of His invitation away from Jesus Christ to have life and relate to God the Father other than through the Son?
Now this is a prophesy given by the Lord Jesus Christ depicting on how bad the times of the Gentiles will be that would signal an end to it as faith will be hard to find.
What is the solution? What denomenational church rejects sola scriptura for our guidance?
Matthew 7:24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
And it should be alarming when other denomenations are saying the same thing they are saying in one form or another.
1 Corinthians 15:33Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. 34Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.
It's time to drop the creeds to stand apart fro Him in defense of the faith which is the good fight. May He help those that hear Him to do that.
- Apr 2, 2003
- 22,801
- 6,114
You seem to have completely missed the point of my post: if something is not mentioned in the Bible in does not mean that it is wrong and should be abandoned. There is nothing in the Creeds that go against what the Bible says. Certain hymns may go against biblical teaching but that can also depend on one's theology. The existence of hymns and their singing in church are not against the Bible.
Such as? As I stated earlier, the Creeds are summations of core Christian doctrine, based on what the Bible says, for easy memorization. Perfect for a largely illiterate population at the time.Enow said:
Well, I would agree that the use of catholic in that sense is "universal," and doesn't refer to only the RCC, since it technically never existed at the time of the writings of the Nicene and Apostle's creeds.Enow said:
This is just semantics.Enow said:
Joh 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. (NIV)
Act 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." (NIV)
Rom 8:11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you. (ESV)
"Life" can be defined in different ways and there are many more verses that could be given.
I have replied previously to that, and will reply again, that I do not think the passage applies.Enow said:
Although I agree with the first part, I don't think that the Creeds have anything to do with it.Enow said:
- Apr 2, 2003
- 22,801
- 6,114
Just because you say so doesn't make it so. Please back up such claims.
jasoncran
Member
- May 17, 2009
- 38,271
- 185
uh, i am not a roman catholic by no means and until martin luther there wasnt any idea of solo scriptura to my knowledge. and i am a protestant fyi. i dare not assume that church of jason solo is a valid one. i am not so holy to think that i have studied it all, so holy that men must ask me what thus saith the lord.
really so if i visit your home church and ask what do you believe what praytell will be your answer?
if you tell me by mouth i believe in the bible and so do all the other then that IS A CREED. I defined what a creed is and it involves oral statements. yup.
i have to learn alot since i have been here and i have in knowledge grown. but i dare not assume that i know more then my pastor even if i do, i dare take his place. God called and annoited him with gifts.
my church has a faith statement and each is referenced to a verse in the bible but we dont recite any creeds.
oh believing that christ died for our sins is on that faith statement.
oh believing in the rapture of the church prior to his return is on that statement
oh water baptism
etc. such unbiblical things in that.
Hi super moderater Free
You are so right! Just because I say something doesn't make it so! So, so, so true. But you want something to back it up? Very well. I shall just offer one sampling of many: II Pet. 3:1-3: Simon Peter, aservant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, According as his divine power hath given unto all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:"
Please note: 1. Those of "like precious faith" is the church and there is but one faith, Eph. 4:5. 2. They are with Peter and the other apostles THROUGH none other than the "righteousness" of God and Jesus. No better company than that. 3. What Peter is about to write is THROUGH the KNOWLEDGE of God and Jesus. No knowledge greater than that. 4. "According as his divine power"---no power greater than that, 5. "Given unto us all things", how much is ALL? 6. "that pertain", pertain to WHAT? 7. "life and godliness". Give me your creed book. Any of your creed books, and it can be shown where men in writing have gone in their feeble efforts beyond "that which is written."
As I said earlier if a creed book contains less than what the Bible teaches it does not have enough, if more than the Bible teaches it has too much, if you want to argue that your creed contains just what the Blble teaches, WHY HAVE IT? They have only contributed to religious division and I believe my Lord in the very shadow of the cross prayed differently.
You are so right! Just because I say something doesn't make it so! So, so, so true. But you want something to back it up? Very well. I shall just offer one sampling of many: II Pet. 3:1-3: Simon Peter, aservant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, According as his divine power hath given unto all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:"
Please note: 1. Those of "like precious faith" is the church and there is but one faith, Eph. 4:5. 2. They are with Peter and the other apostles THROUGH none other than the "righteousness" of God and Jesus. No better company than that. 3. What Peter is about to write is THROUGH the KNOWLEDGE of God and Jesus. No knowledge greater than that. 4. "According as his divine power"---no power greater than that, 5. "Given unto us all things", how much is ALL? 6. "that pertain", pertain to WHAT? 7. "life and godliness". Give me your creed book. Any of your creed books, and it can be shown where men in writing have gone in their feeble efforts beyond "that which is written."
As I said earlier if a creed book contains less than what the Bible teaches it does not have enough, if more than the Bible teaches it has too much, if you want to argue that your creed contains just what the Blble teaches, WHY HAVE IT? They have only contributed to religious division and I believe my Lord in the very shadow of the cross prayed differently.
francisdesales
Member
- Aug 10, 2006
- 7,793
- 4
Clearly, your examples are not the only way the saints are perfected! If all depended upon the Bible, God would require us to be Scriptural scholars...
There is much more to "doing their office" than preaching the Sacred Scriptures, my friend. I wish I had more time - but suffice to say that being a pastor is not only about giving dissertations on verses in the Scriptures. If you'll note the Pastorals, for example, you'll find a number of "job descriptions", none of which discusses being a Scriptural scholar. Nor being well-versed in sacred scriptures. Paul never mentions such requirements.
I believe - feel free to disagree - that being a pastor or leader of a Christian community is MUCH more than giving good sermons. Many do not, but can be good shepherds of the flock. It is being a good example for the flock, leading them in praise and worship, being a medium for the Christ during the sacraments, a role model for the disciple of Christ. A pastor (esp. a priest) gives all for Christ. We are all called to turn away from the world, and a priest/pastor is our worldly example of this. I am only touching on a few things, but believe me, it is much more than the Scriptures...
In fact, ancient Christians record for us that many communities were very good Christians WITHOUT the capacity of reading the Scriptures. No doubt, many are in heaven without ever reading the Bible.
The heart of Christianity, its essence, is not about the Bible, but about recognizing the GIFT of the Divine Life freely given to us. All that other stuff leads to that essence. Rituals, creeds, practice of piety and devotions, Scriptural reading, prayer, etc... They are all gifts given to us to recognize the gift being offered to each of us, God HIMSELF, The Divine Lover is calling you! RESPOND!
Regards
francisdesales
Member
- Aug 10, 2006
- 7,793
- 4
Or vice versus....
francisdesales
Member
- Aug 10, 2006
- 7,793
- 4
Good example. I think that "Church" points to something many people overlook. The Church mimics God - a community of persons bound by Love. But again, many people, in their efforts to "do it themselves", don't realize the benefits of worshiping in a community of like-minded people are who support each other in gtetting to heaven. We just don't find a paradigm for individuals worshiping God outside the community. Such things are always done in the context of community. God is a communion of persons, so is the Church who worships Him.
Btw, who is the baby?
Regards