What has denominationalism done for the world?

[Jude3b]

Denominationalism has flooded the world with a multiplicity of varied and conflicting doctrines and all are labeled "Christian,"

My first question - Isn't division and sect making the greatest of sins?

My second question is - What right have men to establish a religious faith, differing in any respect from the New Testament?

[romepunk]

You're absolutely correct Jude. Christ didn't create a bunch of bickering denominations. He created a church. I'm happy to call you my brother in Christ, since you've joined His Mystical Body. I hope one day you will join the physical Church he established as well.
Answers to your questions:

1. Yes.

2. By differing do you mean absense from the NT or contradicting the NT. Obviously, the NT is not a handbook for Church structure, but one must never contradict the doctrine taught there in.

[mandolin]

jude,
the reason there ARE denominations is because of the differing views. Denominationalism doesn't lead to different theologies, different theologies lead to denominations.

Just imagine..without splitting churches with "denominationalism", you'd probably be praying to your priest right now. I'd think that a militant catholic-hater would at least enjoy some types of western denominationalism (i.e. catholic/protestant)


and Romepunk,
is your avatar a picture of James Hetfield from Metallica??
If it is, Rock on
:b_woot:
If it's not, you should get a picture of James Hetfield
:teeth:

[romepunk]

and Romepunk,
is your avatar a picture of James Hetfield from Metallica??
If it is, Rock on
:b_woot:
If it's not, you should get a picture of James Hetfield
It is indeed the Mighty Het! Thanks for noticing.

[themuzicman]

Denominationalism has flooded the world with a multiplicity of varied and conflicting doctrines and all are labeled "Christian,"

My first question - Isn't division and sect making the greatest of sins?

1) Paul says to stop associating with those that teach a false gospel. So does Jude.

2) The early church was comprised of autonomous local churches with no authority structure above them.

My second question is - What right have men to establish a religious faith, differing in any respect from the New Testament?

What right have men to establish heirarchical structures claiming to speak for God and to be Christ's representative to the earth when there is no basis for such a structure in scripture? (One should be asking that question of the EOC and RCC and every other denomination.)

Michael

[romepunk]

2) The early church was comprised of autonomous local churches with no authority structure above them.
I guess St. Paul had no right to correct them so often. Also, please prove this statement. Either from the Bible or the earliest historical records.

What right have men to establish heirarchical structures claiming to speak for God and to be Christ's representative to the earth
Men didn't, Jesus did.

when there is no basis for such a structure in scripture?
It's obvious to me in Acts that Peter took the reigns and started pastoring the Church Militant. How do you deal with these accounts?

-romepunk

[themuzicman]

I guess St. Paul had no right to correct them so often. Also, please prove this statement. Either from the Bible or the earliest historical records.

Prove a negative? Not logical. My biblical theology show no basis for authoritative church structure beyond the local church.

Paul's writings were as an apostle of Christ intended to correct, not rule.

Men didn't, Jesus did.

Egggzcactly.

It's obvious to me in Acts that Peter took the reigns and started pastoring the Church Militant. How do you deal with these accounts?

-romepunk

Really? Seems to me that James was in charge at the council of Jerusalem. Peter relayed his experiences, Paul and Barnabus relayed their experiences, and James formed the opinion to be spread to the gentiles.

Once Paul got started, Peter seems to fade from Acts, and, oddly enough, Paul never alludes to Peter as the head of the church.

Neither does Peter.

Michael

[romepunk]

Okay, we're dealing with several issues at once here, and that's going to be confusing. This could be a really interesting discussion if we take them one at a time. Let's start with the Council of Jerusalem. Quote the relevant scriptures and give me your explicit interp. Because I just don't see James leading it.

[themuzicman]

Acts 15:2
And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue. 3 Therefore, being sent on their way by the church, they were passing through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and were bringing great joy to all the brethren. 4 When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses."

There was a problem of doctrine, as to whether gentiles had to follow the law.

6 The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. 7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 "And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 "But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."

Peter asks a question, and then answers it. People heed his word enough to consider what he has said. This is the end of Peter's participation, as far as this account goes.

12 All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

Paul and Barnabas include some orthopraxy.

13 After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, "Brethren, listen to me. 14 "Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. 15 "With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, 16 'AFTER THESE THINGS I will return, AND I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID WHICH HAS FALLEN, AND I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS, AND I WILL RESTORE IT, 17 SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD, AND ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME,' 18 SAYS THE LORD, WHO MAKES THESE THINGS KNOWN FROM LONG AGO.

James recaps the important points.

This next verse is key:

19 "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

Who made the judgement? Peter? No. It was James. Peter asked key questions and gave valuable input for sure. But in the end, James made the judgement, and it is clear that it was his judgement, and everyone else followed. The verses that follow say nothing about the rest of the council approving or given assent to his decision.

Acts 15:22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas--Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren,

Their next action was to spread the word.

So, it's very clear that James was the head of the church at Jerusalem, and the one who made the judgement that Gentiles didn't have to follow the law.

Michael

[Rusty T]

I'm reading a great book : The History of the Church by Eusebius.
In church history it is clear that local churches were not autonomous, but rather subject to their bishops. You have several early letters by people such as Clement, Iraeneus, etc. urging believers to be subject to the church hierarchy. James was indeed the Bishop of Jerusalem, and I can give you the apostalic succession in Jerusalem as well as Rome. Major cities tended to have influence over smaller municipalities surrounding them, and eventually the role of Patriarch was developed for certain cities with major influence.

This is all church history - early church history in fact. Authority lies in Christ alone, however, he gave authority to the church.

tizzi

[themuzicman]

Just because the early church established a heirarchy doesn't make it biblical.

Michael

[Rusty T]

Just because the early church established a heirarchy doesn't make it biblical.

Well, see that's where you and I differ. You believe the Bible is the end-all authority. I believe the Bible is part of church (capital "T") Tradition. There would be no Bible outside of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (I'm not talking about RCC here), and this is the rub.

But let's look at the Bible - Christ himself was the head of the church. He established apostles (12 in number) who preached the gospel, establishing churches. They also established leadership - appointing Deacons and Bishops. The first Council of the Church at Jerusalem did not just issue directives for Christians in Jerusalem, but for Christians everywhere - the truly first Ecumenical council if you will. I believe that church hierarchy is indeed Biblical and Historical - as they are both one and the same.

tizzi

[themuzicman]

Notice the recording of the actions following the Jerusalem council:

Acts 15:23 and they sent this letter by them, "The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings. 24 "Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls, 25 it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 "Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell." 30 So when they were sent away, they went down to Antioch; and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter.

This is hardly an authoritative statement of doctrine intended to come from an authoritative church structure. Using "seems" certainly does NOT imply a ruler speaking to one ruled.

In fact, this is a great example of what a council should be: a gathering of elders to pursue the truth, and spread their wisdom to the churches for them to consume, rather than the denomination declaring that their word be considered inerrant, and all churches must follow to the letter of the law.

Sorry, but there is no implication of an authoritative church heirarchy here.

Michael

[Rusty T]

What you describe as a Council is half-true. It is a gathering of the Elders of the Catholic Church to set canons and doctrine that apply as a whole to the Church. If there were teachers and churches that ignored the Council of Jerusalem, would they be considered heretical - schismatic - out of communion? If they continued to teach that Gentile believers had to abide by the Law, would you support that "right" to do so, even though the apostles and leaders of the Church had declared it not so?

There has never been a council that has declared its own rulings inerrant. Not in the Orthodox and Catholic Church. Hindsight may prove it so, but they have never, with intent, declared it so prior to or during a Council.

tizzi

[themuzicman]

Churches that received the Jerusalem council's decision would have done the right thing, because it was the right thing to do, but not because of the people who made the ruling. Note that even James lists the Holy Spirit first as they seemed to think was saying that it was right. The local church elders, then, would have prayed over this and received confirmation from the same Holy Spirit, and all would be well.

Councils need not claim authority for themselves for good rulings to be implemented by the church, especially if they believe that what they have is from the Holy Spirit, because if it is from the Holy Spirit, then He will confirm it to the elders of the churches who receive it.



Whether RCC councils have declared themselves to be inerrant, their claim to sufficient authority to order local churches to obey their rulings is tantamount to a claim of inerrancy. If local churches are unable to pray and consider whether what the council has ruled is of the Holy Spirit for themselves, then the council has taken the place of the Holy Spirit in the world in this respect.

Michael

[Rusty T]

I'm not talking about Roman councils here, btw.

You said that the local church elders would pray and all would be well. What if they didn't pray, or didn't pray earnestly? What if they ignored the rulings of the Council? What then? Would you support their autonomy? On what basis would you determine that they did or didn't obey God?

tizzi

[themuzicman]

I would pray, as well. 1 John says that I have no need for anyone to teach me, because I have the Holy Spirit. If I felt that my church had fallen into sufficient error that I could not support it, I would find a church that I could live with.

Michael

[Rusty T]

Reference and context please of the scripture you paraphrased?

[themuzicman]

1 John 2:27
As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.

[Rusty T]

If you would read that chapter in context, John was indeed teaching in this epistle. This comment is meant as a teaching tool. Here's a handy way to paraphrase it: "I've said all these things that you should abide in Him and not be seduced by the enemy. But of course, you have no need of my teaching because it has already been given to you by the same Holy Spirit." But of course, the whole of John's epistle is teaching. Didn't the Bible say that God has appointed some as pastors, as evangelists, as teachers? If there be no need for teaching, how are these offices relevant? It is clear that in the New Testament (and Early) Church, there was authority in the church. Of course, as good followers of Christ, all those who are first shall be last. They are servants of their brothers, etc, but this does not negate the positions of authority God has set over the church.

[themuzicman]

Read the previous verse. It puts verse 27 into CLEAR context:

These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you.

He's telling them that they don't HAVE TO accept any teaching that comes along, but that they have the annointing of the one who resides in you (the Holy Spirit) such that they don't need anyone else to teach them, so they won't be deceived. If John were directing them to someone claiming to be teachers or pastors or evangelists, he'd be pointing them right back to the people who were deceiving them in the first place! We must do hermeneutics before we do theology, and clearly this passage is set up by verse 26, and John is telling each believer that the Holy Spirit is the one who will teach them, and that they do not need to rely on anyone else to understand the truth.

Michael

[Rusty T]

I'm wondering what your answer is to my previous question. Why set some as teachers, elders, deacons, pastors, etc.? If we are to not be taught by men, then why have teachers. If we are not to be led by men, why have pastors/priests? If the church is not to be quided, how are we to have bishops.

I'm reminded of the great question by Paul to Timothy: "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God." (1 Tim 3:5) If there are not to be those in authority, why is Titus told to "speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee (Titus 2:15)? Why does the Apostle Paul say in 2Thes. 3:14 "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed."? Why are we told in Hebrews 13:17 "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief"?

tizzi

[Rusty T]

themusicman,

I'm still curious as to your answers to my questions. I'm not trying to be facetious, but even when I wasn't an inquirer into Orthodoxy I understood that there had to be authority in the church. However, one point that you made I must concede. We are not to be led by men. We are to be led by the Holy Spirit. There is no doubt about that. But God in his understandable Wisdom has set those in the Church to whom He has given authority. They in turn are to guided by that selfsame Spirit, as they (as servants) serve the body of Christ. We are instructed to obey these men and follow their example [e.g. Paul telling his readers to be followers of him as he is of Christ]. If it were not for godly leadership in His Church, countless heresies may have went unaswered, damning even more souls to continued separation from God. But it was the Church who stood tall in the face of opposition and persecution. I thank God for those He has set in leadership and authority.

tizzi

[themuzicman]

I'm wondering what your answer is to my previous question. Why set some as teachers, elders, deacons, pastors, etc.? If we are to not be taught by men, then why have teachers. If we are not to be led by men, why have pastors/priests? If the church is not to be quided, how are we to have bishops.

Teachers, pastors, evangelists, apostles and prophets are placed in the church to edify and build up the church, not rule it. Obviously, when led by the Spirit, the body should listen and learn from what they say, but they should also be searching the scriptures to see if what they say is true, and asking the Holy Spirit to reveal truth even as they preach.

Elders and deacons were appointed in the local church to run the church and keep it in order. The qualifications should limit selection to men who are wise, Godly, humble, and will not lead the church astray. However, their influence is limited to that local church. And there is no biblical support for authatative structure above the local church.

I'm reminded of the great question by Paul to Timothy: "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God." (1 Tim 3:5) If there are not to be those in authority, why is Titus told to "speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee (Titus 2:15)? Why does the Apostle Paul say in 2Thes. 3:14 "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed."? Why are we told in Hebrews 13:17 "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief"?

tizzi

Because we ARE to take local church authority seriously. They aren't to be disregarded or treated poorly or ignored in matters related to the church. And there will be those who diregard scripture (not that Paul limited it to "our word by this epistle"), and those should be shamed.

I'm still curious as to your answers to my questions. I'm not trying to be facetious, but even when I wasn't an inquirer into Orthodoxy I understood that there had to be authority in the church. However, one point that you made I must concede. We are not to be led by men. We are to be led by the Holy Spirit. There is no doubt about that. But God in his understandable Wisdom has set those in the Church to whom He has given authority. They in turn are to guided by that selfsame Spirit, as they (as servants) serve the body of Christ. We are instructed to obey these men and follow their example [e.g. Paul telling his readers to be followers of him as he is of Christ]. If it were not for godly leadership in His Church, countless heresies may have went unaswered, damning even more souls to continued separation from God. But it was the Church who stood tall in the face of opposition and persecution. I thank God for those He has set in leadership and authority.

I'm not saying that there isn't ANY authority in the church. Obviously, the local church has elders and deacons to rule it, and they are to be respected as the leaders.

Furthermore, there ARE pastors, teacher, prophets, evangelists and apostles to edify the church, and they SHOULD be able to say that all believers should follow their example, even as they follow Christ.

Certainly a good number of heresies have been dealt with in a variety of ways, and for the good of all men. My interest, however, is to establish church authority according to the mandates of scripture.

Michael

[Rusty T]

It is established already in the body of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Orthodox Church. And has been for two-thousand years.

A sinner,

tizzi

[themuzicman]

But that heirarchy has been established without scriptural basis. It seems to be a creation and tradition of men, not of God.

Michael

[Rusty T]

Michael,

God established a church. A living, breathing body that existed Spiritually as well as Materially. This is the church of Ignatius who wrote, "being subject to the bishop and the presbytery, ye may in all respects be sanctified." The church of Clement who wrote the first canons of the church, one of which was "Let a Bishop be ordained by two or more Bishops." Again he writes" A bishop is not to be allowed to leave his own parish, and pass over into another, although he may be pressed by many to do so, unless there be some proper cause constraining him. as if he can confer some greater benefit upon the persons of that place in the word of godliness. And this must be done not of his own accord, but by the judgment of many bishops, and at their earnest exhortation.
You see, these are men who lived with and learned from the Apostles, whom the Apostles themselves ordained as Bishops and overseers of the Church of Almighty God. I thank God for Tradition - not of men, but the Tradition of the Holy Church of God.

tizzi

[themuzicman]

Do you hold the ECF's to be infallible?

[Rusty T]

I do not hold the Church Fathers to be infallible, however, you must understand that I neither believe in sola scriptura. The seven Ecumenical Councils are considered to be infallible by the Orthodox Church. Dositheus, a one-time Patriarch of Jerusalem wrote this concerning God's Church:
We believe the Catholic Church to be taught by the Holy Spirit . . . and therefore we both believe and profess as true and undoubtedly certain, that it is iimpossible for the Catholic Church to err, or to be at all deceived, or ever to choose falsehood iinstead of truth
This infallibility is expressed in Ecumenical councils as the Church comes together - both Bishops and laity - under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit which was promised to "guide [us] into all truth".

[themuzicman]

Well, seeing as there is no scriptural basis for authority structure that was formed, and there is no scriptural basis for more inspired documents to be composed, I find those claims problematic.

Michael

[romepunk]

Wow! This thread has really taken off since I left. Why do I have to work? Why can't I play on the computer all day. :lol:

Okay, tizzidale has been doing a good job of defending the case that Christ established a material, authoritative Church, something Catholics and Orthodox agree on. I probably shouldn't of injected the idea of Petrine primacy in this thread, since it is a secondary issue. But here are some brief thoughts.

I'll simply say that Peter initiated the council of Jerusalem, and from my perspective, presided over it. James was the Bishop of Jerusalem, and thus had immediate authority. That is still the case today with Bishops around the world. Peter has the ultimate authority, but I'll concede that it can't be proven from the text of the Jerusalem council. I think that from the Gospels and elsewhere in Acts it can be shown, but that's really an entirely different thread. I like where this thread is going right now, and would like to defend it from a point that Catholics and Orthodox can agree on.

A question, do you think that Jerusalem Council, and for the matter, the first 7 ecumenical councils are binding on Christians?

[Rusty T]

See, there's the rub again. We will never agree because you hold to the belief in sola scriptura, while the Orthodox believe that scripture is part of Holy Tradition. Without Councils, you would not have the Bible that you currently use. Without men, led by God, the uninspired books possibly would have led many astray into error. You see, we must then now agree to disagree. You would have me believe that we are all our own interpreter of scripture, led by the Holy Spirit. I am a sinner. My passions often rule me, and with God's help I am to be an overcomer. No, my trust is in the Church -
Christ's body.

Forgive me a wretched sinner,

tizzi

[themuzicman]

Paul and Barnabas came to Jerusalem to ask the question. Peter didn't speak up until after there was much debate, so he didn't initiate the council, either.

As for councils being binding, no, I don't believe that they carry the force of scripture in that all believers must obey them because of what they are. Whether they are truth or not is a matter for local churches, and ultimately the Holy Spirit, who teaches each of us. Generally, they have been accepted, so I do not reject them out of hand, either.

Michael

[Rusty T]

The problem is of course that we have different understandings on what the Church actually is. As long as both of us we believe as we do, we will not be able to have consensus.

tizzi

[themuzicman]

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church.

Looks as though the church is all those who are in the body.

For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

And that body consists of all who are baptized by the Spirit into it.

Ephesians 1:13
In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory.

Which comes as a result of salvation, which is by grace through faith. That's the church.

Michael

[Rusty T]

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church.

Looks as though the church is all those who are in the body.I agree.

For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

And that body consists of all who are baptized by the Spirit into it.I agree again.

Ephesians 1:13
In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory.

Which comes as a result of salvation, which is by grace through faith. That's the church.

MichaelI agree again. But I must state again, your idea of the church is not the same as my idea of the Church. You maintain that these verses are talking about some invisible incorporate, mystical body. I maintain that they are refering to an actual Church, both spiritual and corporate.

The Church foremost is a communal body of believers. We partake in His Body and we are The Body. The unity of the Orthodox Church is found in the eucharist. The heirarchy of the church is secondary to the unity of communion.

The Church in unity is not some thing of the past that we will never have again. It is present and will be until the second coming of the Lord ( have mercy, Lord) and that Great Day. "The Gates of Hell Shall Not Prevail" against my Church - so said the Lord.

tizzi

[themuzicman]

Well, your statements about the eucharist are simply your assertions at this point. I don't see any basis for that in scripture.

Church unity is certainly possible, but the first item of business would have to be the dismantling of all authority structure above the local church. I doubt that the pride of men would allow this to happen, however.

Michael

[Rusty T]

Let's have a go in our minds at dismantling all authority above the local church. You would have many churches with decent leadership. You would have many with corrupt leadership. You would have many with false doctrine. You would have many with outright heresy.

Who would ordinate pastors and leaders? Would the local body do this themselves? Who would discipline pastors and leaders? The local body? The Elders and council of the local church perhaps? And if their standard for discipline is wrong? Should my church (theoretically) ,which I believe correct in doctrine and practice according to my interpretation of the Bible, associate with the body of "believers" down the street who do it differently from us - so different that we can't agree on much?

If I'm excommunicated from my local church, can I just move to another part of the country, wiggle my way into a body of believers, and reek havoc by my heresy and foul living? What is to stop me from doing this? A phone call? I could lie easily enough. Discernment? I've seen good men fooled before.

If I'm excommunicated from my church, can I just start my own church with my own interpretation of scripture? Would that be valid? I could claim I'm being led by the Spirit, and after looking around and seeing the other 32,000,000 varying and independent churches claiming the same thing, who could deny my claim?

And why can't the pride of men inhabit the local church? Why must it be applied by you to the hierarchical church. Isn't that short-sighted? You may be ignoring the elephant in your own pulpit.

Look at the state of Protestantism in general. There are plenty of local autonomous churches out there. Where is the unity among these? No, the Orthodox church has had her schisms. There may be a schism from the Church but not within the church. Lord, have mercy.

tizzi

[themuzicman]

You're discounting the work of the Holy Spirit in all of this. You're fretting because there might not be enough control by men to keep heresy from springing up. Yet, these denominations are run by men themselves.

I should think that a church that is organized by the instructions left in scripture would work much better than the constructs of men.

Michael

[Rusty T]

Again, you must understand that our understandings of the Church are making us talk past each other. You say, "instructions left in scripture". And I understand that without the Orthodox church, there would be no scripture. You may balk at that statement, but Paul, Peter, John, Mark, Luke - they are all members of the Church Universal - the Orthodox Church. And they not only wrote documents, but passed on traditions, ordained Elders, Bishops and Deacons. In short - Christ established His Church which is still in existence today.

I'm not fretting because of a lack of control by men. I'm fretting because I believe the Holy Spirit leads and guides the Orthodox and Catholic Church. And without that guidance, you have what you see in Protestantism today - confusion and multiplicity.

God have mercy on me a sinner,

tizzi

[themuzicman]

I understand that the Orthodox assembled the writings and did the necessary study to determine what the canon is today, that's true. I understand that the apostles appointed bishops or elders and deacons in local churches.

Now, if you'll point out where the bible says that the Holy Spirit leads and guides the Orthodox church, rather than individual Christians (as I showed from 1 John 2:27), maybe we can get somewhere.

Michael

[Rusty T]

I firmly believe you took 1John out of context. I will explore this point below. However, I am must assert that the Holy Spirit's guidance in the individual's life is a reality and a blessed reality at that. He is the paraclete - the helper - the Comforter and Guide. The Spirit of Life, present everywhere, filling all things. . . .

As for as the Bible saying, "the Holy Spirit guides the Orthodox church", I'd respond simply that Christ has promised His Church will prevail, and if it is not led by Spirit it will not prevail. But what God has promised will and has come to pass. John 14:26 comes to mind, as wells as John 16:13. Acts 1:8 proves that the Holy Spirt guides the Church Universal. Acts 9:31 also. Revelation chapter 2 also is a great illustration.

Now to your interpretation of 1 John 2:27. I believe we have to go back to verse 7 to get the context. John says here that his readers had "an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning." But from this point, he begins to teach (in his words) "a new commandment". He proceeds to teach about hating our brothers, and loving our brothers. He then commends his readers, the young and old alike. He then lists some more commandments - love not the world, etc. He then changes gears. He begins to talk about the ones who have left the fold and were never part of the fold.

Then in verse 20 he says, "Be ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things." I believe this is directly tied into verse 7 that talks about commandments they've had from the beginning. You see, they had been taught the word of God. They knew the Truth! This is what John is saying in verse 20. He is not saying they were omnipotent is he? This point is underlined in verse 24 when John writes, "Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. . . ." Who have they heard it from I wonder?

In verse 26, John underscores the purpose of this discourse (this teaching even!) - that they be not deceived. Then he begins to talk about the annointing they have received in their lives. John says, "You need not that any man teach you." What has he been doing these previous verses? Indeed, are they unteachable? No. John is merely saying what he has already said - they've already been taught the truth annointed by God. "How shall they hear without a preacher?" And it is this Truth - annointed by the Spirit - delivered by those with "beautiful feet" that protects and leads His people.

tizzi

[themuzicman]

John 14:26
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

Nothing about the church, here.

John 16:13
"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.

These parallel 1 John 2:27 nicely... at least as I read it.

Acts 1:8
but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth."

Nothing about the church, here. Just the Spirit's coming upon them, and then their mission.

Acts 9:31
So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria enjoyed peace, being built up; and going on in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it continued to increase.

The Holy Spirit conforted those in the church throughout Judea, etc.

Revelation two is letters to seven different local churches.


I think I see where your lense is backwards: God guides the church via the Holy Spirit in individuals, not individuals via the Holy Spirit in the church. All of these passages except Act 9:31 (which is vague at best) clearly talk about the Holy Spirit working in individuals.

You can try to wriggle something out of the context if 1 John 2:27 if you want, but the phrase: the anointing which you received from Him abides in you clearly refers to the Holy Spirit, and as for and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things I'm not sure where you go from teaches you (not the church) and you are taught all things.

The church doesn't teach us all things. The church didn't come to guide us into all truth. When you remove the lense and realize that the Holy Spirit teaches individuals, and not the church, you'll see moer clearly.

Michael

[Rusty T]

As I said previously, it seems that you and I are speaking different languages. You disagree that God works in this world through His Church. I believe that God established a corporal church that has existed and will continue to exist is Truth; and the Gates of Hell will not prevail.

From my perspective:
John 14:26 was talking to his disciples/apostles. The Holy Spirit did move on them and teach them and guide them - and they the Church.

The same for John 16:13

Acts 1:8 - If the apostles weren't in the Church then no one was. This verse deals with the Holy Spirit moving on them to make disciples throughout the world. But of course you mean for me to say "autonomous" churches. Of course that is not mentioned.

In Acts 9:31 the location of the Church is given as several physical locations. The Church is Corporal and it is Catholic.

Revelations is to local churches. I do not deny that. Who would? But I suppose you could not find find "brides" in Christ? No. Each of these churches were of the Church. And isn't it interesting that the Apostle John was correcting, teaching, and prophesying to each of the seven churches. I bet those local pastors were miffed at the intrusion.

This is my last post in this thread, as we keep talking past and around each other.

tizzi

[Jezz]

Hey TMM, hope you don't mind me butting in here.

I understand that the Orthodox assembled the writings and did the necessary study to determine what the canon is today, that's true. I understand that the apostles appointed bishops or elders and deacons in local churches.
The Orthodox not only assembled the writings, they wrote the writings, and they were the target audience of the writings. It's a little bit funny that you come along 2000 years later and tell them what they meant. :wink:

Now, if you'll point out where the bible says that the Holy Spirit leads and guides the Orthodox church, rather than individual Christians (as I showed from 1 John 2:27), maybe we can get somewhere.
Perhaps if you'll point out where the Bible said that every true Church doctrine must come from the Bible, then your demand might have weight. The Church only ever taught that everything in the Bible is true - they never taught that every true thing was in the Bible. Your demand is founded on the axiom "Every Christian doctrine must be found in the Bible." - an axiom that you haven't justified. Ironically, it is this extra-Biblical tradition that forms the basis of your "sola scriptura" world view...

But anyway, it just so happens that the Bible does talk about the Holy Spirit guiding the entire church, rather than the individual. It is quite implicit, because the people of the time were collectively minded. They didn't consider themselves individuals separately from the group (ie, the body of Christ) of which they were a part. To say that "the Holy Spirit guided the Church" and "the Holy Spirit guided individuals" meant the same thing. Individuals had no membership in the body of Christ outside of the Church. Your description of the Church as some invisible thing made up of individuals would have sounded very strange to the Christians of the early centuries.

Read 1 Corinthians 12, where Paul talks about "one body, many parts". He talks about the members of the Church as members of one body. Members of the body are not considered in isolation - but as part of the body. If a member does not act in accordance with the rest of the body, then they are separating themselves from the body by definition. The Holy Spirit guided the Church by guiding individuals. Any given individual is prone to sinning and rebelling against the Spirit, but at the level of Church as a whole these errors are cancelled out. That is why you can't rely on any given individual to interpret the Bible. You have to rely on the entire Church.

John 14:26
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

Nothing about the church, here.
I beg to differ. :smile: The word "you" that appears in that verse is in the plural in the Greek - that means that Jesus is not addressing individuals, but the group as a whole. If Jesus had wanted to say that He was going to send the Holy Spirit to people as individuals, He would have said "...will teach each of you all things, and bring to each of your rememberance all that I said to each of you. But Jesus did not say that. I might be able to make the point more obvious if I use Southern slang to replace certain words:

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach y'all all things, and bring to your rememberance all that I said to y'all.

He said He was sending the Helper to guide the group, and to bring to the rememberance of the group all that he said to the group. Which group was Jesus addressing?

John 16:13
"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
Same comments apply as above - Jesus is using the 2nd person plural, and addressing the group as a whole - not each of them as individuals. The Spirit of truth was going to guide the group into all the truth, and disclose to the group what is to come. Again - which group was Jesus addressing?

These parallel 1 John 2:27 nicely... at least as I read it.
Key there being as you read it. What makes you so sure that your reading is correct? When two people disagree, who arbitrates? In point of fact, the verses you have quoted actually support the Orthodox position.

Acts 1:8
but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth."

Nothing about the church, here. Just the Spirit's coming upon them, and then their mission.
Again, Jesus is using the second person plural - He was addressing the group as a whole - not individuals. Which group was it?

Acts 9:31
So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria enjoyed peace, being built up; and going on in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it continued to increase.

The Holy Spirit conforted those in the church throughout Judea, etc.
Exactly. The subject of this sentence is the church, and not its individual members separately.

Revelation two is letters to seven different local churches.
That's right - letters to churches and not to individuals.

I think I see where your lense is backwards: God guides the church via the Holy Spirit in individuals, not individuals via the Holy Spirit in the church. All of these passages except Act 9:31 (which is vague at best) clearly talk about the Holy Spirit working in individuals.
The irony of this statement is that it is you who has your lens backwards. People in NT times thought collectively - not individually. Reading individuality into these texts is doing serious contextual violence to the text.

You can try to wriggle something out of the context if 1 John 2:27 if you want, but the phrase: the anointing which you received from Him abides in you clearly refers to the Holy Spirit, and as for and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things I'm not sure where you go from teaches you (not the church) and you are taught all things.
Guess what, Muz - the "you" is again plural in these passages. :smile: John was addressing a group of people, not an individual. John does not say "the annointing which each of you received from Him abides in each of you", which is what he would have written if he had been speaking individually. Instead, he addresses the group as a whole. What was the group?

The church doesn't teach us all things. The church didn't come to guide us into all truth. When you remove the lense and realize that the Holy Spirit teaches individuals, and not the church, you'll see moer clearly.
This is precisely back to front. The Holy Spirit teaches the Church, and the individuals learn from the Church. The Truth is like a mirror - when you see an error in the Truth, in reality you are seeing your own error reflected back at you.

In each of the examples you quoted above, the Holy Spirit was said to be at work in a group, and guiding a group into truth. Which group was it? That's right - it was the Church. Ironically, the verses you quoted refute your position, and support the Orthodox position. Combine this with the anthropological data (ie, the collectivist mindset of the ancient world), and it is clear that the Orthodox position here is the correct one.

[themuzicman]

That's quite a stretch to go from a plural of "you" to meaning that the Holy Spirit teaches "the church", but somehow only certain ones in the church are taught, because the rest have to learn from the church. Is the church the entire body of Christ, or only the papacy?

Even in the collective mindset, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all thingssays that they all are taught about all things, not a select few who pass it on to the rest.

Your problem is that you first take a collective group mindset, and then immediately impose a structure on that group, such that most of them hear the Holy Spirit from the few.

So, even with a plural, collective mindset, you still have issues in dealing with this passage.

Michael

[Jezz]

That's quite a stretch to go from a plural of "you" to meaning that the Holy Spirit teaches "the church", but somehow only certain ones in the church are taught, because the rest have to learn from the church. Is the church the entire body of Christ, or only the papacy?
It's not much of a stretch at all.

The church is the entire body of Christ. But Paul made it quite clear that the members of the body each receive different gifts from the Spirit and are to use them for the good of the entire body.

27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues ? Do all interpret? 31But eagerly desire the greater gifts.

Note: not everyone in the body is a teacher. Also consider: what need would a Church have for teachers, prophets and apostles, if everyone was taught individually by the Spirit?

Even in the collective mindset, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all thingssays that they all are taught about all things, not a select few who pass it on to the rest.
No, you're still reading individuality into the text. The passage said that the group (and the individuals contained therein) would be taught all things by the Spirit. It doesn't say how the Spirit would achieve that. If John had wanted to emphasise that the Spirit teaches people individually, without input from others in the group, he could have written: "...the anointing which each of you received from Him abides in each of you and none of you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches each of you about all things..." But he didn't write that. He addressed the group as a whole, and left the details unspecified as to how the group was structured, and how the individuals within that group would be taught. Was it by direct action of the Spirit, or was it through the work of a fellow Christian who received the gift of teaching from the Spirit? This text gives no indication either way, and thus as a proof text for your point it falls short.

Your problem is that you first take a collective group mindset, and then immediately impose a structure on that group, such that most of them hear the Holy Spirit from the few.

So, even with a plural, collective mindset, you still have issues in dealing with this passage.
This assertion is false because I haven't tried to impose any sort of structure on that group as yet. I merely noted that it was a group that was being addressed in those passages you listed - not individuals. It is you who are insisting that there was no structure - an assertion that is not born out by the passage you quoted. The passage you quoted tells you absolutely nothing about the structure of the group being addressed - it only tells you that the group is addressed. (There are other passages that indicate a hierarchy of sorts was present, but I did not want to go there at this point.)

I agree that the Spirit teaches individuals (obviously, as the Church is composed of individuals, He can't teach the Church without teaching individuals), but I don't believe that the Spirit teaches people individually. There is a subtle difference. He teaches them as part of the wider group - the Church.

If you think about it, it must be this way. The idea that the Spirit teaches people individually, in isolation from each other, leads to problems. Individuals are imperfect (ie, sinful) and often distort the Spirit's message. If God's truth was left in the hands of individuals, then it'd rapidly disintegrate. Individuals disagree all the time (as evidenced by Protestantism). When two Christians disagree, how do you know which of them is correct? Well, it seems to me the best thing to do would be to take a vote. Ask the opinions of everyone who has the Spirit (ie, those in the Church), and take the majority opinion. Because while individuals might err, the Holy Spirit is still going to get His message across on balance. Those individuals who disagree are the ones who have mistaken. In this way, when individuals come together as members of the body of Christ, they form a group (the Church) which is greater than the sum of its parts. While individuals may err, the Church will not.

Also another comment above that you made that I felt I had to comment on:

As for councils being binding, no, I don't believe that they carry the force of scripture in that all believers must obey them because of what they are. Whether they are truth or not is a matter for local churches, and ultimately the Holy Spirit, who teaches each of us. Generally, they have been accepted, so I do not reject them out of hand, either.
This attitude undermines your own case. Scripture is only as authoritative as the Council that gave it to us. If the Council erred when they chose the books of the canon, then the Bible we have is errant. Thus you cannot logically believe in an authoritative Bible unless you have just as much faith in the authority of the Council which formed it.

[themuzicman]

It's not much of a stretch at all.

The church is the entire body of Christ. But Paul made it quite clear that the members of the body each receive different gifts from the Spirit and are to use them for the good of the entire body.

27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues ? Do all interpret? 31But eagerly desire the greater gifts.

Note: not everyone in the body is a teacher. Also consider: what need would a Church have for teachers, prophets and apostles, if everyone was taught individually by the Spirit?

John's point in 1 John 2:27 wasn't that they would be exclusively taught by the Spirit. That was never my point, either. John's point was that they didn't need to accept every teaching that came their way. Verse 26 makes it very clear that John was talking about those who were false teachers (deceivers) in the church!

Let me ask you this: In 1 Corinthians, is Paul writing to the whole church, or a local church?

No, you're still reading individuality into the text. The passage said that the group (and the individuals contained therein) would be taught all things by the Spirit. It doesn't say how the Spirit would achieve that. If John had wanted to emphasise that the Spirit teaches people individually, without input from others in the group, he could have written: "...the anointing which each of you received from Him abides in each of you and none of you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches each of you about all things..." But he didn't write that. He addressed the group as a whole, and left the details unspecified as to how the group was structured, and how the individuals within that group would be taught. Was it by direct action of the Spirit, or was it through the work of a fellow Christian who received the gift of teaching from the Spirit? This text gives no indication either way, and thus as a proof text for your point it falls short.

Wait, Wait, Wait.

There are three "you"s in there. "The annointing you received", "no need for anyone to teach you", and "His anointing teaches you."

Now, I don't think you mean to say that only some of them received the annointing on behalf of the rest, such that they are somehow God's oracle to the rest of us. But, if we're to take your interpretation of this verse, then that is exactly how we must read this. Notice who teaches them. Not the church, but His annointing.

Thus, if we consider all of the "y'all"s, we need to understand each as meaning "each of you", or we fall out of step with the remainder of scripture.

I agree that the Spirit teaches individuals (obviously, as the Church is composed of individuals, He can't teach the Church without teaching individuals), but I don't believe that the Spirit teaches people individually. There is a subtle difference. He teaches them as part of the wider group - the Church.

I don't see why this has to be an either/or. We receive teaching from the Holy Spirit directly, and as we hear others speak what the Spirit has given to them, so long as it is harmonious with the Word.

If you think about it, it must be this way. The idea that the Spirit teaches people individually, in isolation from each other, leads to problems. Individuals are imperfect (ie, sinful) and often distort the Spirit's message.

However, there is no escaping this problem in any event. Whether the truth is given to a few or many, there will be error. The difference is that when only a few receive it, the error is mangified because the many must believe what they say. The RCC is clear evidence of this.

If God's truth was left in the hands of individuals, then it'd rapidly disintegrate. Individuals disagree all the time (as evidenced by Protestantism). When two Christians disagree, how do you know which of them is correct? Well, it seems to me the best thing to do would be to take a vote. Ask the opinions of everyone who has the Spirit (ie, those in the Church), and take the majority opinion. Because while individuals might err, the Holy Spirit is still going to get His message across on balance. Those individuals who disagree are the ones who have mistaken. In this way, when individuals come together as members of the body of Christ, they form a group (the Church) which is greater than the sum of its parts. While individuals may err, the Church will not.

First, there is more than ample evidence that when you get a group of people together, the only synergy created is movement towards error, not away from it. The sum of imperfect parts is more imperfection.

Second, I don't see why some disagreement over non-essential doctrine has to be an unhealthy thing. Why do we need to take a vote? Why can we not simply engage in dialogue, taking time to pray and open our hearts to the Holy Spirit to teach us along the way? Why must there be immediate resolution to every question?

People don't exist in a vaccuum. We discuss our theology in many forums, and when it is done in love and respect, it is a postive and edifying experience, and there is no need for any to claim authority over another in doctrine.

This attitude undermines your own case. Scripture is only as authoritative as the Council that gave it to us. If the Council erred when they chose the books of the canon, then the Bible we have is errant. Thus you cannot logically believe in an authoritative Bible unless you have just as much faith in the authority of the Council which formed it.

I disagree. First, you are discounting the work of God in preserving His word. There is no need for any council to declare some kind of universal authority to compile a list of writings to call their bible. The fact that we all agree on those compiled means that they got it right.

Michael

[Jude3b]

"He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." (John 8:47)

[Jezz]

John's point in 1 John 2:27 wasn't that they would be exclusively taught by the Spirit. That was never my point, either. John's point was that they didn't need to accept every teaching that came their way. Verse 26 makes it very clear that John was talking about those who were false teachers (deceivers) in the church!
Ok, I think one of us has misunderstood the other at some point here.

My point is not that the Spirit doesn't teach everyone in the church. My point is that the teaching of the Spirit comes in both internal and external forms.

Let me ask you this: In 1 Corinthians, is Paul writing to the whole church, or a local church?
Both. As it is an epistle addressed to the Corinthians, it is clear that he is addressing a local church. However, because Paul says "you are the body of Christ", and we know that the phrase "body of Christ" did not apply to the church of Corinth alone, he must also have been addressing the entire church.

Wait, Wait, Wait.

There are three "you"s in there. "The annointing you received", "no need for anyone to teach you", and "His anointing teaches you."
Yes, and without clarification it is most likely that they are all referring to the same group of people.

Now, I don't think you mean to say that only some of them received the annointing on behalf of the rest, such that they are somehow God's oracle to the rest of us. But, if we're to take your interpretation of this verse, then that is exactly how we must read this. Notice who teaches them. Not the church, but His annointing.

Thus, if we consider all of the "y'all"s, we need to understand each as meaning "each of you", or we fall out of step with the remainder of scripture.
Ok, I think this is where we are misunderstanding each other a little.

What I am trying to say is that, from the reading of that passage, it is clear that John is talking about the anointing of the Church, because he addresses the church as a group. This is supported by the collectivist mindset of the day.

Naturally, because the Church consists of individuals, this means that the individuals of the Church receive this anointing. And I agree that the most sensible understanding is that each of the members of the Church were individually anointed. However, they were only received their anointing because the Church as a whole was anointed, and they as members of the Church were anointed by virtue of their membership.

I don't see why this has to be an either/or. We receive teaching from the Holy Spirit directly, and as we hear others speak what the Spirit has given to them, so long as it is harmonious with the Word.
I agree to an extent. But the devil in the above statement is the phrase "so long as it is harmonious with the Word". Who gets to decide what is "harmonious with the Word"? The answer is that only the Church as a whole can reliably make that decision (see later).

If you think about it, it must be this way. The idea that the Spirit teaches people individually, in isolation from each other, leads to problems. Individuals are imperfect (ie, sinful) and often distort the Spirit's message.

However, there is no escaping this problem in any event.
Are you saying that it is inevitable that the Spirit's message will be distorted? If God cannot overcome this problem, then He mustn't be omnipotent. Moreover, He is a liar because He said that the gates of Hades will not prevail against the Church.

Whether the truth is given to a few or many, there will be error. The difference is that when only a few receive it, the error is mangified because the many must believe what they say. The RCC is clear evidence of this.
I'm not saying that the truth is not given to everyone. I think you're confusing the Orthodox view of the Church with the RCC version. The Orthodox view of the Church has traditionally been much different to that of the RCC. The RCC see the Church as a monarchical/feudal arrangement, with authority that comes down from the top to the bottom. In the RCC, it is the responsibility of the episcopate alone to preserve the church doctrine, and the laity are basically supposed to follow their lead. I agree that this is a bad system, as it concentrates power into the hands of the episcopate (and especially the pope), and history has shown that this leads to disastrous consequences.

In the Orthodox Church, whoever, there has never been this wide chasm between laity and episcopate. It is the Orthodox view that, although the episcopate has a special role in preserving the faith, ultimately it is the responsibility of every member of the Church to ensure that the faith is faithfully preserved. There have been times in Orthodox history where the episcopacy has strayed, and the laity have had to preserve the faith and bring their episcopacy back into conformance.

First, there is more than ample evidence that when you get a group of people together, the only synergy created is movement towards error, not away from it. The sum of imperfect parts is more imperfection.
I'd be interested to see what kind of evidence you consider proves this assertion, as it is a false one. :wink:

Errors can be classified into two different types: systematic and random. "Systematic" is when the same error happens in each measurement. "Random" is when the error is, well, random. It is a basic principle of statistics that the magnitude of the random error will decrease as the number of measurements increases, and the average taken. In other words, in contrast to what you said - the sum of imperfect parts is more perfection. Because I believe in the action of the Holy Spirit, I believe that there will be no systematic error in such an average.

Second, I don't see why some disagreement over non-essential doctrine has to be an unhealthy thing. Why do we need to take a vote? Why can we not simply engage in dialogue, taking time to pray and open our hearts to the Holy Spirit to teach us along the way? Why must there be immediate resolution to every question?
The key phrase there being "non-essential doctrine". Who has the authority to decide whether or not any given doctrine is essential? Given that individuals can err, this decision cannot be made by any individual. It can only be made by an inerrant body - that is, the Church.

People don't exist in a vaccuum. We discuss our theology in many forums, and when it is done in love and respect, it is a postive and edifying experience, and there is no need for any to claim authority over another in doctrine.
I agree that people don't exist in a vacuum. That's precisely my point. Christians in particular exist as members of the body of Christ - ie, the Church - which is greater than the sum of its parts. Thus, it's not a matter of individuals claiming authority over each other - rather, it is a matter of the Church having authority over individuals. That is the only reliable way by which true doctrine may be determined.

I disagree. First, you are discounting the work of God in preserving His word. There is no need for any council to declare some kind of universal authority to compile a list of writings to call their bible. The fact that we all agree on those compiled means that they got it right.
I'm not discounting the work of God in preserving His word. Indeed, that's something of my point - God preserved His word through His Church - His infallible instrument on Earth against which the gates of Hades will not prevail. We recognise Scripture as the Word of God because the Church declared that it was - and not the other way around. You can't start with Scripture as your authority, because that leaves unanswered the question of where it received that authority from. It makes you no different to a Muslim who dogmatically claims that the Qu'ran is the inspired word of God.

[themuzicman]

God preserved His word through His Church - His infallible instrument on Earth against which the gates of Hades will not prevail.

Where does the bible say that the church is infallible?

What I am trying to say is that, from the reading of that passage, it is clear that John is talking about the anointing of the Church, because he addresses the church as a group. This is supported by the collectivist mindset of the day.

John prefaces this verse with These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you.

Obviously there were those in the church who were trying to deceive them. Why would John be directing those to whom he is writing back to the same people who were deceiving them in the first place?

John's point isn't that the church teaches or is annointed, but that they all are annointed (as you said they are), and that the don't need to accept teaching from someone else (in this case, those trying to deceive them) on its face, because the annointing will teach them.

Once we consider the context of 1 John 2:27, its meaning become far clearer.

Michael

[Jezz]

Where does the bible say that the church is infallible?
Where does the Bible say that all Christian doctrine comes from the Bible?

Moreover, the church to whom John was writing - did they consult the Bible (which had not yet been assembled)? Or did they rely on the authority of the wider Church (in this case, the advice given to them by the apostle John in his letter)? The authority of the wider Church was always the utlimate authority in doctrinal matters, not the Bible.

So your question is irrelevant. But anyway, it is answerable even by your own criteria:

I'm sure you're aware that Paul repeatedly refers to the Church as the body of Christ. Can Christ sin? No. Despite being made out of corruptible matter, Christ Himself remained incorruptible. In the same way, although the Church is made up of fallible human beings, the Church as a whole is infallible. The Church is infallible because Christ is its head - and Christ is infallible.

We also have this rather explicit statement by Jesus Himself:

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

If the Church can err, then the gates of Hades will eventually prevail against it. Therefore, the Church cannot err, or else Jesus is a liar and a fraud.

John prefaces this verse with These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you.

Obviously there were those in the church who were trying to deceive them. Why would John be directing those to whom he is writing back to the same people who were deceiving them in the first place?
It is far from obvious that those who were trying to deceive them were in the Church. In fact, it is most probably the case that they were not considered by John to be part of the Church. Just a few verses back, in the same passage, John writes this:

18Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

Those who did not uphold the teaching of the wider Church were considered not to be in the Church by definition. The Orthodox Church still teach this today - by definition, those who did not hold to the apostolic faith place themselves outside the Church.

In this passage, John is specifically addressing only those people "who know the truth" (v21). Those who have remained faithful to that which has been taught to them previously. Those doing the deceiving were outside of the Church by definition in John's mind, and John does not include them in his address. Thus (in answer to your objection) he was not sending them back to those who were deceiving them in the first place.

Note that when John writes: "the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you." (v27), what he is actually doing is affirming their orthodoxy. The reason John declares they don't need anyone to teach them is because he recognises their teaching as already orthodox, and those who teach otherwise are in error. The statement "the anointing you received from him remains in you" is an observation, based on the fact that their teaching is still in accordance with what John taught them. If John had suspected that their teaching had strayed from what he originally taught them, he would not have declared that the anointing that they had received from him remained in them. That's the way Orthodoxy works - churches independently preserving the faith, and mutually affirming each others' Orthodoxy. As it was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever more.

John's point isn't that the church teaches or is annointed, but that they all are annointed (as you said they are), and that the don't need to accept teaching from someone else (in this case, those trying to deceive them) on its face, because the annointing will teach them.
Question - do you think that John felt that they needed to accept the teaching that he was offering them in his letter, as a member of the wider Church? What would John's attitude have been to his target audience If they had rejected his teaching - do you think that John would have just said "Oh well... you've been anointed and you don't need me to tell you what's true and what's not"? Or would he have accused them of being deceivers, and leading those in the Church astray?

Once we consider the context of 1 John 2:27, its meaning become far clearer.
Indeed, but the context extends beyond the verse immediately preceding. It includes the wider passage, the mindset of John and the ancient world, their attitude to the Church and what it was, etc, etc...

[themuzicman]

Where does the Bible say that all Christian doctrine comes from the Bible?

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

Scripture, BTW, is written.

Moreover, the church to whom John was writing - did they consult the Bible (which had not yet been assembled)? Or did they rely on the authority of the wider Church (in this case, the advice given to them by the apostle John in his letter)? The authority of the wider Church was always the utlimate authority in doctrinal matters, not the Bible.

You're trying to make John into the wider church. Yes, they trusted John's writing, because He was an apostle to Christ. Also, upon receiving John's letter, they possessed scripture, in this case from John. If they needed confirmation of whether what John said was truth, they'd have to consult the Holy Spirit.

So your question is irrelevant. But anyway, it is answerable even by your own criteria:

I'm sure you're aware that Paul repeatedly refers to the Church as the body of Christ. Can Christ sin?

Christ's body is not Christ. You're stretching an analogy to where Paul did not intend it to go. Christ could not sin because He is God. Is the CHURCH God?

No. Despite being made out of corruptible matter, Christ Himself remained incorruptible. In the same way, although the Church is made up of fallible human beings, the Church as a whole is infallible. The Church is infallible because Christ is its head - and Christ is infallible.

Again, you're stretching the analogy beyond its breaking point. The analogy is akin to a man and a woman becoming one flesh. They are still individuals, and yet are one in marriage. I don't think you'd claim that when a wife sins, her husband is guilty of that sin, would you?

We also have this rather explicit statement by Jesus Himself:

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

If the Church can err, then the gates of Hades will eventually prevail against it. Therefore, the Church cannot err, or else Jesus is a liar and a fraud.

Again, this is built upon faulty logic. If the church is in error, that is the Church's fault. It doesn't mean that hades is somehow prevailed against the church, neither does it mean that Jesus is a liar or fraud. Furthermore, as long as there are Christians, the church has not been defeated. The gates of hades would only prevail if no one on earth remained saved.

It just means that the church is filled with fallen, sinful people who aren't infallible.

It is far from obvious that those who were trying to deceive them were in the Church. In fact, it is most probably the case that they were not considered by John to be part of the Church. Just a few verses back, in the same passage, John writes this:

18Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

Those who did not uphold the teaching of the wider Church were considered not to be in the Church by definition. The Orthodox Church still teach this today - by definition, those who did not hold to the apostolic faith place themselves outside the Church.

You apparantly missed the went out from us. They were part of the church. They were probably claiming to still be part of the church, and had probably deceived many among John's readers. To direct them back to the church that was already embroiled in deception would be foolish. To direct them to learn from the Holy Spirit, instead of those around them, makes a lot more sense.

In this passage, John is specifically addressing only those people "who know the truth" (v21). Those who have remained faithful to that which has been taught to them previously. Those doing the deceiving were outside of the Church by definition in John's mind, and John does not include them in his address. Thus (in answer to your objection) he was not sending them back to those who were deceiving them in the first place.

They were outside the church in John's mind. However, they were still in the local church. They weren't going to be able to read John's mind. Those who were deceiving and those being deceived (and those not being deceived) were hearing this letter together. Clearly, John was exhorting them to seek the truth from the Holy Spirit so they could discern who the deceivers really were.

Note that when John writes: "the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you." (v27), what he is actually doing is affirming their orthodoxy. The reason John declares they don't need anyone to teach them is because he recognises their teaching as already orthodox, and those who teach otherwise are in error. The statement "the anointing you received from him remains in you" is an observation, based on the fact that their teaching is still in accordance with what John taught them. If John had suspected that their teaching had strayed from what he originally taught them, he would not have declared that the anointing that they had received from him remained in them. That's the way Orthodoxy works - churches independently preserving the faith, and mutually affirming each others' Orthodoxy. As it was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever more.

Annointing is teaching, and not the Holy Spirit, now? Note that it says 'His annointing teaches', not 'His annointing taught.' There is an active teaching taking place, here.

You're jumping all over the place on this text, now. First you said that it was the Holy Spirit, now you're saying it's not. Which is it?

Question - do you think that John felt that they needed to accept the teaching that he was offering them in his letter, as a member of the wider Church? What would John's attitude have been to his target audience If they had rejected his teaching - do you think that John would have just said "Oh well... you've been anointed and you don't need me to tell you what's true and what's not"? Or would he have accused them of being deceivers, and leading those in the Church astray?

As a wider member of the church? No. As an apostle who had learned from Christ and one who was writing scripture to them? Yes. It is your insertion that John somehow is claiming the infallible authority of the church rather than the inerrancy of scripture writers as the Holy Spirit carried them along that is disturbing. (cf. 2 Pet 1:20-21)

Indeed, but the context extends beyond the verse immediately preceding. It includes the wider passage, the mindset of John and the ancient world, their attitude to the Church and what it was, etc, etc...

However, we cannot ignore verse 26, either.

Michael

[Jezz]

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

Scripture, BTW, is written.
Sigh... this verse again... when will "sola scriptura" advocates realise that this passage does not claim what they think it claims... :teeth: (I oughta know... I used to believe in sola scriptura...)

1. At the time Paul was writing, it is uncertain as to what he meant by "Scripture". He undoubtedly meant the OT, but possibly some of the NT. But he can't have meant all of the NT, because it wasn't all written. So who had the authority to elevate different books to the level of Scripture? Did the NT canon come from Scripture alone?
2. Most importantly, I agree that all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness! But this does not say that Scripture alone is profitable for such!!! In other words, this passage does not teach "Sola Scriptura".

5 pearls if you admit that this verse does not teach sola scriptura...

You're trying to make John into the wider church.
Was John part of the wider Church or not? All the other epistle writers - Peter, Paul, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, etc, etc - they were all writing as one member of the wider Church to another part of the wider Church - offering guidance and correction which they expected their target audience to adhere to.

Yes, they trusted John's writing, because He was an apostle to Christ.
A small nit: The phrase "apostle to Christ" does not make sense. "Apostle" means "envoy". John was an envoy of Christ - not an envoy to Christ.

That aside - being an apostle is what made John a trustworthy representative of the wider Church.

Also, upon receiving John's letter, they possessed scripture, in this case from John.
Upon receiving John's letter, they possessed Scripture? How did it magically become elevated to the level of Scripture? What indication do you have that either John or his audience considered his little letter to be "Scripture", or even that anyone other than themselves would ever read it?

If they needed confirmation of whether what John said was truth, they'd have to consult the Holy Spirit.
So what did they say - "Hey there, Holy Spirit - is what John said true?" What form did the Holy Spirit's response take?

In answer to these questions: The Holy Spirit is present in the Church as a whole. In consulting John as a member of the wider Church, they were consulting the Holy Spirit.

Christ's body is not Christ. You're stretching an analogy to where Paul did not intend it to go. Christ could not sin because He is God. Is the CHURCH God?

Again, you're stretching the analogy beyond its breaking point. The analogy is akin to a man and a woman becoming one flesh. They are still individuals, and yet are one in marriage. I don't think you'd claim that when a wife sins, her husband is guilty of that sin, would you?
That is exactly where Paul intended the analogy to go. It is in Christ (ie, being a member of His body) that we are made righteous - that is why he chose the imagery of the body of Christ to describe the Church. The Church is God's chosen instrument of spreading the Gospel to the world.

Again, this is built upon faulty logic. If the church is in error, that is the Church's fault. It doesn't mean that hades is somehow prevailed against the church, neither does it mean that Jesus is a liar or fraud. Furthermore, as long as there are Christians, the church has not been defeated. The gates of hades would only prevail if no one on earth remained saved.

It just means that the church is filled with fallen, sinful people who aren't infallible.
Heh, I usually find that when people accuse me of faulty logic, it is their own logic that is at fault... not always, but usually...

You are arguing that the Church, because it consists of fallible individuals, it will err. If we take the aggregate of these errors over all individual members of the Church for all time, there are two possibilities:

1. The errors of the individual members of the Church accumlate.
2. The errors of the individual members of the Church average out.

These are the only two logically possible options. Now, if we go with 1, then it follows by induction that the Church will eventually have distorted the original faith to the extent that it no longer exists - in other words, the gates of Hades will prevail. Jesus promised that this wouldn't happen. Therefore, the only possible option is 2 - ie, that the errors average out when the entire Church is considered. In other words, the Church does not err.

I made this point in an earlier post, and you did not respond to it. Back then, you explicitly pointed out that the sum of errors is more error. That statement (as I have proven) is equivalent to claiming that the gates of Hades will prevail.

The absurdity of your position lies in the fact that you claim that even if only one person is saved, the gates of Hades have not prevailed. I beg to differ. If only one person is saved, and 6 billion others are damned to Hades, I think it pretty obvious who's prevailed in that battle.

You apparantly missed the went out from us. They were part of the church.
I did not miss it. You apparently miss the point that John is making. It might help if you consult the original Greek. Here is a more literal translation:

They went out from us but they were not from us for if they were from us they would have continued with us. But they went out in order that it may be made manifest that they were not all from us.

John is making the point that although they physically came from "us" (presumably, the Church), they were not actually from "us". Because if they were from "us", they would still be with "us". Note that this implies that they were no longer "with us".

They were probably claiming to [i]still be part of the church, and had probably deceived many among John's readers. To direct them back to the church that was already embroiled in deception would be foolish. To direct them to learn from the Holy Spirit, instead of those around them, makes a lot more sense.
No, actually - that is unfounded speculation. If anything, John's words indicate that the deceivers were no longer among the people to whom John was writing (as I pointed out above). It was also the teaching of the Church that heretics were to be expelled.

They were outside the church in John's mind. However, they were still in the local church. They weren't going to be able to read John's mind. Those who were deceiving and those being deceived (and those not being deceived) were hearing this letter together. Clearly, John was exhorting them to seek the truth from the Holy Spirit so they could discern who the deceivers really were.
Regarding the likelihood of them still being in the local church - see above.

As for what John was exhorting - he wasn't exhorting them to seek the truth from the Holy Spirit - he was exhorting them to remain faithful to the truth that they had already received (v24): See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. Who did they hear it from? The Holy Spirit? Or the wider Church? Answer: both. They heard it from the wider Church, which was the vehicle of the Holy Spirit. That is the only way to harmonise v24 and 26.

Annointing is teaching, and not the Holy Spirit, now? Note that it says 'His annointing teaches', not 'His annointing taught.' There is an active teaching taking place, here.

You're jumping all over the place on this text, now. First you said that it was the Holy Spirit, now you're saying it's not. Which is it?
I'm not jumping around at all. My position has always been as I described it above: The Holy Spirit taught these people through the Church. When I say "the Church taught these people" and "the Holy Spirit taught these people", those two statements are not in opposition. They both taught them, because the former was the vehicle for the latter.

As a wider member of the church? No. As an apostle who had learned from Christ and one who was writing scripture to them? Yes.
That is a false dichotomy. The whole point of Jesus discipling the apostles was to found His Church (Matthew 16:18). John was a member of the wider church because he had learned the faith from Christ - the founder of the Church.

I admit that this point is not obvious from the passage you are quoting. But it becomes more obvious when you look at the later bishops who wrote epistles to other Churches - Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, etc. None of these people were among the original 12 apostles, and yet their teachings presumably carried weight in the churches whom they addressed - otherwise, they would not have bothered to write them! But if the epistles carried weight, and their writers were not direct apostles of Christ, then the question that your position leaves unanswered is: "Why did their epistles carry weight?" If they expected "the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth", then why did they bother to write epistles at all? This question is left unanswered in your view - my view nicely answers it. Again, the Holy Spirit did guide them into all truth - and the vehicle of this guidance was the action of the wider body of the Church.

It is your insertion that John somehow is claiming the infallible authority of the church rather than the inerrancy of scripture writers as the Holy Spirit carried them along that is disturbing. (cf. 2 Pet 1:20-21)
It is your insertion that John considered himself to be writing scripture, and that he considered scripture writers to be inerrant. Moreover, what is the point of inerrant scripture if those who are interpreting it are fallible?

In my view, the Holy Spirit carried them along because they were part of the Church.

However, we cannot ignore verse 26, either.
I wasn't ignoring v26. I was illuminating its meaning using the context earlier verses.

[themuzicman]

Sigh... this verse again... when will "sola scriptura" advocates realise that this passage does not claim what they think it claims... :teeth: (I oughta know... I used to believe in sola scriptura...)

1. At the time Paul was writing, it is uncertain as to what he meant by "Scripture". He undoubtedly meant the OT, but possibly some of the NT. But he can't have meant all of the NT, because it wasn't all written. So who had the authority to elevate different books to the level of Scripture? Did the NT canon come from Scripture alone?
2. Most importantly, I agree that all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness! But this does not say that Scripture alone is profitable for such!!! In other words, this passage does not teach "Sola Scriptura".

I never said it did. I was answering your question. It does, however, say that all scripture is for teaching. Now, if you can show us another place where it says that something else is profitable for teaching, we can discuss it. However, I don't see other options in scripture.

5 pearls if you admit that this verse does not teach sola scriptura...

This verse, in and of itself, does not teach sola scriptura.

Was John part of the wider Church or not? All the other epistle writers - Peter, Paul, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, etc, etc - they were all writing as one member of the wider Church to another part of the wider Church - offering guidance and correction which they expected their target audience to adhere to.

Whether they were a part of the wider Church or not is irrelevant. The real question is whether they were the wider church when they wrote, or whether they were writing as the Holy Spirit carried them along! Is the source of their writings the church or God?

That aside - being an apostle is what made John a trustworthy representative of the wider Church.

Actually, being an apostle of Christ is what gave John credibility. The carrying of the Holy Spirit is what made his writing scripture. His membership in the church is coincidence in relationship to his writing.

Upon receiving John's letter, they possessed Scripture? How did it magically become elevated to the level of Scripture? What indication do you have that either John or his audience considered his little letter to be "Scripture", or even that anyone other than themselves would ever read it?

Peter was certainly aware when he wrote (2 Peter 1:20-21). Paul was aware while he was writing (2 TIm 3:16).

John's style in commanding and making statements of fact regarding Christ and Christians suggests that he believe he was communicating from God. (Oddly enough, John never claims the authority of the church for his writings. Neither do Peter or Paul.)

So what did they say - "Hey there, Holy Spirit - is what John said true?" What form did the Holy Spirit's response take?

Probably not quite so irreverantly. The Holy Spirit would respond in the way that was appropriate for the person asking.

In answer to these questions: The Holy Spirit is present in the Church as a whole. In consulting John as a member of the wider Church, they were consulting the Holy Spirit.

They weren't consulting John. John wrote to them. Furthermore, John never claims to speak in the authority of the church.

That is exactly where Paul intended the analogy to go. It is in Christ (ie, being a member of His body) that we are made righteous - that is why he chose the imagery of the body of Christ to describe the Church. The Church is God's chosen instrument of spreading the Gospel to the world.

We are his instrument. However, we need to keep in mind Paul's view of Christ's relationship to His church in terms of marraige, as well, in that the two become one flesh, even though there remain two individuals.

Christ being the head of the church as the husband is the head of the body doesn't make the church infallible.

Heh, I usually find that when people accuse me of faulty logic, it is their own logic that is at fault... not always, but usually...

You are arguing that the Church, because it consists of fallible individuals, it will err. If we take the aggregate of these errors over all individual members of the Church for all time, there are two possibilities:

1. The errors of the individual members of the Church accumlate.
2. The errors of the individual members of the Church average out.

These are the only two logically possible options.

If you are a deist, then these are the only two possibilities.

However, if you are a theist, then you've engaged in the error of the false dichotomy. These are NOT the only two possibilities. You ignore the work of God in His church.

The errors of the individual members of the church do accumulate. However, God works in His church and through those put in the church to edify it (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers) to correct errors that arise.

How can you completely ignore the work of God in preserving His church?

The absurdity of your position lies in the fact that you claim that even if only one person is saved, the gates of Hades have not prevailed. I beg to differ. If only one person is saved, and 6 billion others are damned to Hades, I think it pretty obvious who's prevailed in that battle.

Are you saying that there are more people who have been saved then those who are going to hell? Are you saying that success means that a plurality of people who were ever born must be saved in order for hades not to prevail?

Because if your answer is 'yes', you need to open your eyes. There are as many muslims as Christians in the world, today, and that doesn't count Hindus, buddists, atheists, and every other world religion. If that's your standard, then you've already lost.

God's purpose in creation was to have a people that are holy and blameless to Him. As long as God has a people to be holy and blameless, the gates of hades have not prevailed, and in the end, Satan will be defeated, those who have not accepted Christ will be judged, and those who are in Him will receive incorruptible bodies and be the bride of Christ, and a holy and blameless people to God forever, and the gates of hades will be defeated forever. It is already prophecied.

So, regardless of number, God's purpose will be fulfilled, and the gates of hell will NOT prevail.

I did not miss it. You apparently miss the point that John is making. It might help if you consult the original Greek. Here is a more literal translation:

They went out from us but they were not from us for if they were from us they would have continued with us. But they went out in order that it may be made manifest that they were not all from us.

John is making the point that although they physically came from "us" (presumably, the Church), they were not actually from "us". Because if they were from "us", they would still be with "us". Note that this implies that they were no longer "with us".

But they were with them. They were in the church, and were probably still claiming to be a part of the church. How would the people John wrote to know who was who, unless they individually were able to learn from the Holy Spirit and discern the truth, and then come together to reach a consensus from what the Spirit had told each of them?

No, actually - that is unfounded speculation. If anything, John's words indicate that the deceivers were no longer among the people to whom John was writing (as I pointed out above). It was also the teaching of the Church that heretics were to be expelled.

Either way, their teaching had evidently taken hold in the church. Why would John tell them to consult the church, when that was the source of the problem?

As for what John was exhorting - he wasn't exhorting them to seek the truth from the Holy Spirit - he was exhorting them to remain faithful to the truth that they had [i]already received (v24): See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. Who did they hear it from? The Holy Spirit? Or the wider Church? Answer: both. They heard it from the wider Church, which was the vehicle of the Holy Spirit. That is the only way to harmonise v24 and 26.

Obviously the truth that they already had wasn't quite enough to refute the heresy, and John is giving them more doctrine upon which to build and learn, and he is telling them that the Holy Spirit teaches (continuous present tense, not past) them about all things, so that they don't have to swallow everything someone claiming to be from the wider church says.

I'm not jumping around at all. My position has always been as I described it above: The Holy Spirit taught these people through the Church. When I say "the Church taught these people" and "the Holy Spirit taught these people", those two statements are not in opposition. They both taught them, because the former was the vehicle for the latter.

Except that you're inserting the church into the text. It doesn't say that the annointing teaches the church. It says that it teaches you. Yes, it's in the plural, but it is still directly teaching everyone in 'you', without an intermediary.

That is a false dichotomy. The whole point of Jesus discipling the apostles was to found His Church (Matthew 16:18). John was a member of the wider church because he had learned the faith from Christ - the founder of the Church.

However, John never claims the authority of the wider church.

I admit that this point is not obvious from the passage you are quoting. But it becomes more obvious when you look at the later bishops who wrote epistles to other Churches - Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, etc.

All of whom, although Christian and probably Godly men, had agendas to solidify a church power structure, of which they were a part. Once we establish that their writings are neither inerrant or infallible, we can return to scripture, where there is no foundation for the kind of chruch structure that the RCC and EO (and protestant denominations, for that matter) have established.

None of these people were among the original 12 apostles, and yet their teachings presumably carried weight in the churches whom they addressed - otherwise, they would not have bothered to write them! But if the epistles carried weight, and their writers were not direct apostles of Christ, then the question that your position leaves unanswered is: "Why did their epistles carry weight?" If they expected "the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth", then why did they bother to write epistles at all? This question is left unanswered in your view - my view nicely answers it. Again, the Holy Spirit did guide them into all truth - and the vehicle of this guidance was the action of the wider body of the Church.

Peter answers the question better, in that those writing scripture were carried along by the Holy Spirit. Yes, I understand the issues of assembling a canon of scripture, and I believe God had a hand in that process, as well.

However, the writings of the ECFs simply cannot carry the weight of scripture, nor must we accept their writings where there is no foundation in scripture.

It is your insertion that John considered himself to be writing scripture, and that he considered scripture writers to be inerrant. Moreover, what is the point of inerrant scripture if those who are interpreting it are fallible?

1) Yes.

2) That is one of the roles of the Holy Spirit working in each person's life.

In my view, the Holy Spirit carried them along because they were part of the Church.

How you can insert church into places where there is no mention of the church is amazing. It's eisegesis of the weirdest kind. Do you think the church is the Holy Spirit? Are you asserting that the Holy Spirit is limited to acting through the wider church, and that the wider church somehow gives credence to the work of the Holy Spirit? If so, what is the basis for this?

Michael

[Jezz]

I never said it did. I was answering your question.
Allow me to repeat my question: "Where does the Bible say that all Christian doctrine comes from the Bible?"

You either:
1. Intended your quoted scripture to prove that all Christian doctrine must come from the Bible (ie, "sola scriptura"), or
2. You didn't answer my question.

Which is it?

It does, however, say that all scripture is for teaching. Now, if you can show us another place where it says that something else is profitable for teaching, we can discuss it. However, I don't see other options in scripture.
This begs the very question that I asked in the first place! Your argument looks like this:

1. All Christian doctrine must come from Scripture.
2. Scripture does not teach that Christian doctrine may come from a source other than Scripture.
3. Therefore, the idea that Christian doctrine may come from non-Scriptural sources is not a Christian doctrine.
4. Therefore, all Christian doctrine must come from Scripture.

Your conclusion at 4 is the same as the starting premise at 1. In other words, your reasoning is circular, and it proves nothing.

So back to my original question: Where in Scripture does it say that all Christian doctrine must come from Scripture (ie, "sola scriptura")? And if you can't justify this foundational doctrine from scripture itself (hint: I already know that you can't), then what right to you have to insist that I find Scriptural backing for everything that I say?

This verse, in and of itself, does not teach sola scriptura.
Your pearls are on their way.

Whether they were a part of the wider Church or not is irrelevant. The real question is whether they were the wider church when they wrote, or whether they were writing as the Holy Spirit carried them along! Is the source of their writings the church or God?
Again, a false dichotomy. God is the source of the writings, using the Church as His chosen vehicle, guiding His Church with the Holy Spirit.

Actually, being an apostle of Christ is what gave John credibility. The carrying of the Holy Spirit is what made his writing scripture. His membership in the church is coincidence in relationship to his writing.
Being an apostle of Christ is what made John a member of the wider Church. That's hardly a coincidence - it's true by definition. Jesus' goal was to found a new Israel (hence the symbolism of 12 apostles) - that is, His Church. He chose His apostles as the founding members of that Church, with Himself as their head - just as Jacob (aka, Israel) was father of the 12 tribes.

John's authority as one of the original 12 apostles cannot be separated from his authority as one of the founding members of the Church - the two are inextricably intertwined.

Peter was certainly aware when he wrote (2 Peter 1:20-21). Paul was aware while he was writing (2 TIm 3:16).
No. There is no indication in either of these passages that Peter or Paul thought his own writing, or John's writing, was Scripture. Peter does not say "what I am writing to you is Scripture" or "what John has written to you is Scripture", and neither does Paul. They talk about Scripture in a much more general sense - and probably only had the OT in mind.

The only clear indication that we have that Paul thought of anything other than the OT as Scripture is the passage in 1 Timothy 5:18, where he quotes Luke as Scripture.

John's style in commanding and making statements of fact regarding Christ and Christians suggests that he believe he was communicating from God.
So when you make statements of fact regarding Christ and Christians, do you believe that you are communicating from God?

Regardless, there's a leap from "Believed he was communicating from God" and "Believed he was writing Scripture".

(Oddly enough, John never claims the authority of the church for his writings. Neither do Peter or Paul.)
As above, claiming authority of the Church is implicit in their claim to be apostles. It was, after all, the apostles who founded the apostolic churches (the communion of which forms the Apostolic Church).

Probably not quite so irreverantly. The Holy Spirit would respond in the way that was appropriate for the person asking.
And 99% of the time, that response would come in the form of a corrective from a fellow Church member.

They weren't consulting John. John wrote to them. Furthermore, John never claims to speak in the authority of the church.
As I pointed out above, claiming to speak as an apostle was the same thing as claiming to speak as an authority of the Church.

We are his instrument. However, we need to keep in mind Paul's view of Christ's relationship to His church in terms of marraige, as well, in that the two become one flesh, even though there remain two individuals.

Christ being the head of the church as the husband is the head of the body doesn't make the church infallible.
The two metaphors are different, and you should not mix them. You should not mix them. In the "body of Christ" metaphor, we are not said to be "united with Christ" as happens in marriage - we are said to be in Christ. Romans 12:5 ...so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We are members of the body of Christ, and are "in" the body of Christ. The body of Christ is sinless. Wives are never said to be "in" the body of their husbands, nor are they said to be the body of their husbands, so the metaphor is different.

Besides which, even if we use the husband-wife metaphor - would any bride other than a sinless bride be worthy of matrimonial relationship with Christ?

If you are a deist, then these are the only two possibilities.

However, if you are a theist, then you've engaged in the error of the false dichotomy. These are NOT the only two possibilities. You ignore the work of God in His church.

The errors of the individual members of the church do accumulate. However, God works in His church and through those put in the church to edify it (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers) to correct errors that arise.

How can you completely ignore the work of God in preserving His church?
I don't completely ignore the word of God in preserving the Church. My whole point was that I believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church so that it is infallible (in fact, I think that I could have asked you that question!) I perhaps didn't word the options properly, I'll try it again:

1. The errors of the individual members of the Church accumlate over time.
2. The errors of the individual members of the Church dissipate as they are compensated by other individuals, so that on average there is no error over time.

You seem to have gone for option 2. Which is my point - the Church is infallible.

Are you saying that there are more people who have been saved then those who are going to hell? Are you saying that success means that a plurality of people who were ever born must be saved in order for hades not to prevail?
I am suggesting that if God went to all this effort and only one person made it to heaven and the rest go to hell, then you've got a strange idea of what "prevailing" is. In fact, you've stacked the deck decidedly in God's favour. For Satan to prevail, he has to get absolutely everyone to hell. For God to prevail, he only has to get one person into heaven. So on current world population statistics, God has only a one in 6 billion chance of losing... Given that Jesus is pretty much a walk-up starter for heaven, that leaves open the possibility that everyone apart from Him will end up in hell, and you can still claim that God won...

Because if your answer is 'yes', you need to open your eyes. There are as many muslims as Christians in the world, today, and that doesn't count Hindus, buddists, atheists, and every other world religion. If that's your standard, then you've already lost.
I think that you've got your numbers wrong. There were roughly 50% more Christians than Muslims in 2000. Unless there has been massive, undocumented conversions to Islam in the last 4 years, I think there are still substantially more Christians than Muslims.

But anyway, I don't believe that all members of all other religions will end up in hell. To be sure, I don't believe that they will all end up in heaven either - I don't really know what the percentage will be. But one in 6 billion seems a little on the low side to me. A God who can only get 1 in 6 billion people into heaven must be either impotent or unloving, and I don't believe that God is either.

But they were with them. They were in the church, and were probably still claiming to be a part of the church.
They had most probably been cast out of the church already, because John speaks as though they were no longer with them.

How would the people John wrote to know who was who, unless they individually were able to learn from the Holy Spirit and discern the truth, and then come together to reach a consensus from what the Spirit had told each of them?
Ahh, so now you're talking about a consensus position, and not an individual one? I thought you were claiming that an individual had no need to converse with the wider Church, because every Christian is annointed with the Holy Spirit?

Either I've been misunderstanding you all along, or you've just done a complete about-face. Let me try explaining my position more clearly, and you can tell me which it is. :smile:

Yes, I believe that the Holy Spirit guides individuals. But individuals are sinful, and have a tendency to ignore the Spirit's calling. So how does an individual know if they are ignoring the calling, or if they have it right? You can't make a car go by sitting inside and pushing on the dashboard - you have to push on something external to the car. Likewise, a person cannot internally verify that they have correctly heard the calling of the Spirit - they need an external reference. The appropriate external reference is another person who has the Holy Spirit. But they might have erred too - better consult a third party. The more the merrier. For best results, consult everyone at all times (past and present) who has had the Holy Spirit. In other words, consult the Church.

That is why I say the Holy Spirit acts through the Church, and not individuals. Individuals can (and do) distort the Spirit's call. But if you get enough people who have the Spirit together, then the errors will be cancelled out by the greater weight of numbers who have correctly heard the Spirit.

Either way, their teaching had evidently taken hold in the church. Why would John tell them to consult the church, when that was the source of the problem?
John didn't tell them to consult their local church. He told them to "See that what they have heard from the beginning remains in them." (v24). Who did the local church hear it from in the beginning?

Obviously the truth that they already had wasn't quite enough to refute the heresy, and John is giving them more doctrine upon which to build and learn, and he is telling them that the Holy Spirit teaches (continuous present tense, not past) them about all things, so that they don't have to swallow everything someone claiming to be from the wider church says.
You're right - you don't have to swallow everything that someone claiming to be from the wider Church says. But when two, three, four... entire churches... all start telling you that you've got something wrong, then it is much more likely that you have got it wrong than that everyone else has.

Except that you're inserting the church into the text. It doesn't say that the annointing teaches the church. It says that it teaches you. Yes, it's in the plural, but it is still directly teaching everyone in 'you', without an intermediary.
The Church is not an intermediary. The Church is not a "separate entity" apart from the people (the RCC model is somewhat more akin to that) - the Church is the people. The heirarchy of an Orthodox Church is considered to be part of the Church - not above the Church.

However, John never claims the authority of the wider church.
John claims apostolic authority, which as I noted above is equivalent.

All of whom, although Christian and probably Godly men,
"Probably" Godly men? Now you have the authority to decide who's Godly and who isn't? :shrug:

They were hand-picked by the apostles. Two of them were martyred for the cause. Their Godliness has never been questioned by anyone in the Church. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to judge if they were Godly men or not...

...had agendas to solidify a church power structure, of which they were a part.
Of course, you don't have an agenda at all... like, for example, a desire to desolve power structures because you have a problem submitting to authority... :smile:

As for your charge of these Godly men having "agendas" to solidify a church power structure of which they were a part... well, that's just complete and utter rubbish. Really. What possible selfish motivation could they have had for wanting a position of "power" within the Church? It was hardly a position of any real power, just plenty of added responsibility. Not to mention the higher moral standards that they were expected to adhere to (see 1 Timothy 3). And to make things worse, the Church in this period was a persecuted Church - and who in the Church do you think attracted the most persecution? Do you think it any coincidence that two of the three Fathers that I mentioned (Ignatius and Polycarp) were martyred? Given the extra responsibility, stricter moral standards, and persecution and the little tangible reward a bishopric involved, it is a miracle that anyone stepped up to fill the position at all... let alone coveted it...

I think perhaps you're confusing the early Church with the unpersecuted Church after Constantine's edict of toleration. It was only in this time that bishoprics started to become positions associated with wealth and power. Certainly, by this time (and especially in Rome after its fall in 410, which left a power vacuum filled by the Roman bishop) a bishopric might be something to be sought after. But only a fool would have wanted a bishopric in the early Church.

Morover, all three of these men were directly discipled by the apostles themselves. Do you really think that they all misunderstood the instructions of the apostles that badly or forgot them in such a short time? I'm sorry, but I find that very hard to believe. You don't give the apostles much credit as teachers and judges of character, nor much credance to the guidance of the Holy Spirit if that's what you think. I find it much more likely that they understood exactly what the apostles had taught them, and preserved that teaching faithfully.

I mean, here is the alternative history that you propose:

30 AD Jesus
30-90 AD The apostles.
70-150 AD The successors of the apostles, who didn't really understand the apostles' teachings and distorted them to suit their own ends.
...
2004 AD themuzicman, who figures out what the apostles really meant, and doesn't distort their teachings to suit his own ends.

Doesn't something seem a little bit amiss there? :shrug:

Once we establish that their writings are neither inerrant or infallible, we can return to scripture, where there is no foundation for the kind of chruch structure that the RCC and EO (and protestant denominations, for that matter) have established.
Firstly, you still haven't established that all Church doctrine must come from Scripture. You haven't justified justified the inerrancy of Scripture from Scripture, nor have you establish

Secondly, the concept of a Church hierarchy does have its roots in the NT. The concept of bishops, priests and deacons actually finds its roots in the NT - the Greek words for these are episcopos (overseer), presbuteros (elder), and daikonos (servant) respectively. The office of the deacon first appeared (though not by name) in Acts 6:1-7, and is contrasted with the tasks that the apostles performed (which though combined at the time, later developed into the bishopric and priesthood). In 1 Peter 5:1, Peter indentifies himself a fellow presbuteros, and addresses the other presbuteroi in the congregation. The terms "episcopos" and "presbuteros" were used more-or-less interchangably in the NT, but developed a separate meaning very early on (ie, 1st century).

Peter answers the question better, in that those writing scripture were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Peter understood "being carried along by the Holy Spirit" to mean the same thing as "being part of the wider body of Christ". You're trying to create a distinction where the writers would not have seen one.

Yes, I understand the issues of assembling a canon of scripture, and I believe God had a hand in that process, as well.
Right, so God only had a hand in those bits of Church history that you consider necessary to support your position?

It is a matter of history, and not up for debate, that it was the Church as a whole which determined the canon of Scripture. Here you admit that the Holy Spirit was guiding that process. I guess He was just asleep on the job while the Church developed an episcopacy though, hey? I'm sorry, but I find it very hard to believe that the Holy Spirit would have allowed generations of Christians to develop an episcopacy without realising the "inherent evils" of it, only to have the Holy Spirit finally guide you into truth to realise the error of the Church's ways for the past 1900 years. It is much more likely that you are mistaken, and the generations of Christians before you are correct.

However, the writings of the ECFs simply cannot carry the weight of scripture, nor must we accept their writings where there is no foundation in scripture.
Of course we must accept their writings. If you don't trust the ECFs, then why would you trust that they had faithfully preserved the writings of the apostles? Why would you trust that they made the right decision when the Biblical canon was formed?

1) Yes.
Then why are you complaining about me "inserting" the Church everywhere? Especially as I've given you historical backing for the fact that it should be inserted, and you've done nothing equivalent...

2) That is one of the roles of the Holy Spirit working in each person's life.
Individuals are sinful and untrustworthy and make mistakes. There's no point relying on an individual interpretation - you need a consensus (as you realised above). And the more members of the Church that you get in your consensus, the better. If everyone in the Church agrees, then it must be true. That's how the Orthodox Church works. That's how it has always worked.

How you can insert church into places where there is no mention of the church is amazing. It's eisegesis of the weirdest kind.
The NT was written by members of the Church, for members of the Church. The Church is always present as a background. The NT writers and their audiences, as Christians living in a collectivist society, drew their identity as being part of the Church. The Church is thus implicit in all the NT writings. It's not eisegesis at all, it's evaluation of proper historical context.

Do you think the church is the Holy Spirit? Are you asserting that the Holy Spirit is limited to acting through the wider church, and that the wider church somehow gives credence to the work of the Holy Spirit? If so, what is the basis for this?
No, I am saying that the Church is the primary vehicle through which the Holy Spirit works in the world. The Spirit gives different gifts to different individuals, and nowhere does Scripture promise that the gift of correct interpretation will be given to everyone.

[themuzicman]

Allow me to repeat my question: "Where does the Bible say that all Christian doctrine comes from the Bible?"

You either:
1. Intended your quoted scripture to prove that all Christian doctrine must come from the Bible (ie, "sola scriptura"), or
2. You didn't answer my question.

Which is it?

I'm pointing out that the bible is an inerrant, infallible source for teaching. I then ask you to show where the bible says that the church is an inerrant, infallible source for teaching.

So back to my original question: Where in Scripture does it say that all Christian doctrine must come from Scripture (ie, "sola scriptura")? And if you can't justify this foundational doctrine from scripture itself (hint: I already know that you can't), then what right to you have to insist that I find Scriptural backing for everything that I say?

I find that the source of doctrine is prescribed by 1 Tim 3:16. It does not claim to be sola per se, but there is no other teaching as to another source of inerrant, infallible doctrine in the bible.

Again, a false dichotomy. God is the source of the writings, using the Church as His chosen vehicle, guiding His Church with the Holy Spirit.

Later on, you go on to say that everyone in the church is the church, but somehow writings came through the church to the church. I feel some waffling about what "the church" really is.

Being an apostle of Christ is what made John a member of the wider Church. That's hardly a coincidence - it's true by definition. Jesus' goal was to found a new Israel (hence the symbolism of 12 apostles) - that is, His Church. He chose His apostles as the founding members of that Church, with Himself as their head - just as Jacob (aka, Israel) was father of the 12 tribes.

John's authority as one of the original 12 apostles cannot be separated from his authority as one of the founding members of the Church - the two are inextricably intertwined.

Founding member, yes. However, his authority does not stem from being a founding member of the church, nor does it come from being a part of the wider church. His authority comes from the fact that he is being carried along by the Holy Spirit.

So when you make statements of fact regarding Christ and Christians, do you believe that you are communicating from God?

Not as John, Peter and Paul, no.

As above, claiming authority of the Church is implicit in their claim to be apostles. It was, after all, the apostles who founded the apostolic churches (the communion of which forms the Apostolic Church).

So, his authority preceeded the church.

And 99% of the time, that response would come in the form of a corrective from a fellow Church member.

However, the source of authority would not be the church or that he was a member of the church, but the Holy Spirit.

As I pointed out above, claiming to speak as an apostle was the same thing as claiming to speak as an authority of the Church.

Make up your mind. First you said taht they had authority before the apostolic church, and now you're saying that their authority comes from the apostolic church. Can't be both.

Besides which, even if we use the husband-wife metaphor - would any bride other than a sinless bride be worthy of matrimonial relationship with Christ?

Ah, but Christ is making His bride holy and blameless. She isn't there yet.

I don't completely ignore the word of God in preserving the Church. My whole point was that I believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church so that it is infallible (in fact, I think that I could have asked you that question!) I perhaps didn't word the options properly, I'll try it again:

1. The errors of the individual members of the Church accumlate over time.
2. The errors of the individual members of the Church dissipate as they are compensated by other individuals, so that on average there is no error over time.

You seem to have gone for option 2. Which is my point - the Church is infallible.

I've gone for option 3: The errors of individual members of the church accumulate over time, and God works at times in the church to steer it back in the right direction, but at no time can the church claim to be infallible.

I am suggesting that if God went to all this effort and only one person made it to heaven and the rest go to hell, then you've got a strange idea of what "prevailing" is. In fact, you've stacked the deck decidedly in God's favour. For Satan to prevail, he has to get absolutely everyone to hell. For God to prevail, he only has to get one person into heaven. So on current world population statistics, God has only a one in 6 billion chance of losing... Given that Jesus is pretty much a walk-up starter for heaven, that leaves open the possibility that everyone apart from Him will end up in hell, and you can still claim that God won...

Yup. Read Ephesians 1:3-4. God's purpose was to have a people who are holy and blameless. It doesn't say anything about how many or who.


I think that you've got your numbers wrong. There were roughly 50% more Christians than Muslims in 2000. Unless there has been massive, undocumented conversions to Islam in the last 4 years, I think there are still substantially more Christians than Muslims.

However, Christians are not in the majority.

But anyway, I don't believe that all members of all other religions will end up in hell. To be sure, I don't believe that they will all end up in heaven either - I don't really know what the percentage will be. But one in 6 billion seems a little on the low side to me. A God who can only get 1 in 6 billion people into heaven must be either impotent or unloving, and I don't believe that God is either.

Looks like God is doing a little better than 1 in 6 billion to me.

They had most probably been cast out of the church already, because John speaks as though they were no longer with them.

Oh? Sounds to me like they were still dealing with the deception.

Ahh, so now you're talking about a consensus position, and not an individual one? I thought you were claiming that an individual had no need to converse with the wider Church, because every Christian is annointed with the Holy Spirit?

Either I've been misunderstanding you all along, or you've just done a complete about-face. Let me try explaining my position more clearly, and you can tell me which it is. :smile:

The Holy Spirit teaches individuals. Individuals are organized into churches, where there are elders who have authority over that church. Those elders are there, in part, to doctrinally direct the local church and to teach. They are taught by the Holy Spirit just as the remainder of the church is. A local church, then, is a body who comes together under the doctrine taught by those local elders, and for a purpose which the elders lead them in. The members, then, led by the Holy Spirit remain in that church solong as the teaching of that church is in harmony with the Holy Spirit.

Yes, I believe that the Holy Spirit guides individuals. But individuals are sinful, and have a tendency to ignore the Spirit's calling. So how does an individual know if they are ignoring the calling, or if they have it right? You can't make a car go by sitting inside and pushing on the dashboard - you have to push on something external to the car. Likewise, a person cannot internally verify that they have correctly heard the calling of the Spirit - they need an external reference.

Like the bible?

The appropriate external reference is another person who has the Holy Spirit. But they might have erred too - better consult a third party. The more the merrier. For best results, consult everyone at all times (past and present) who has had the Holy Spirit. In other words, consult the Church.

I see no guarantee in scripture that a group of men will be more infallible than an individual. Group dynamics suggest otherwise.

That is why I say the Holy Spirit acts through the Church, and not individuals. Individuals can (and do) distort the Spirit's call. But if you get enough people who have the Spirit together, then the errors will be cancelled out by the greater weight of numbers who have correctly heard the Spirit.

But you never can really tell if the truth has won out.

John didn't tell them to consult their local church. He told them to "See that what they have heard from the beginning remains in them." (v24). Who did the local church hear it from in the beginning?

The apostle that came to them. However, Who did John direct them to in order to be taught? (The Holy Spirit.)

You're right - you don't have to swallow everything that someone claiming to be from the wider Church says. But when two, three, four... entire churches... all start telling you that you've got something wrong, then it is much more likely that you have got it wrong than that everyone else has.

Like the Mormons?

The Church is not an intermediary. The Church is not a "separate entity" apart from the people (the RCC model is somewhat more akin to that) - the Church is the people. The heirarchy of an Orthodox Church is considered to be part of the Church - not above the Church.

Make up your mind. First the Word comes to us through the church, and now you say that we are the church. Which is it?

John claims apostolic authority, which as I noted above is equivalent.

Noted but not show.

"Probably" Godly men? Now you have the authority to decide who's Godly and who isn't? :shrug:

I didn't know them personally.

They were hand-picked by the apostles. Two of them were martyred for the cause. Their Godliness has never been questioned by anyone in the Church. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to judge if they were Godly men or not...

And I'm not now.

Of course, you don't have an agenda at all... like, for example, a desire to desolve power structures because you have a problem submitting to authority... :smile:

Maybe. Then again, there's nothing in scripture to show any authority structure beyond the local church, either.

As for your charge of these Godly men having "agendas" to solidify a church power structure of which they were a part... well, that's just complete and utter rubbish. Really. What possible selfish motivation could they have had for wanting a position of "power" within the Church?

Probably a good motivation. They wanted to stamp our heresy and fight those who were deceiving the church and such. Lots of unscriptural things get started with the best of motives.

It was hardly a position of any real power, just plenty of added responsibility. Not to mention the higher moral standards that they were expected to adhere to (see 1 Timothy 3). And to make things worse, the Church in this period was a persecuted Church - and who in the Church do you think attracted the most persecution? Do you think it any coincidence that two of the three Fathers that I mentioned (Ignatius and Polycarp) were martyred? Given the extra responsibility, stricter moral standards, and persecution and the little tangible reward a bishopric involved, it is a miracle that anyone stepped up to fill the position at all... let alone coveted it...

No question that they were courageous in standing up.

I think perhaps you're confusing the early Church with the unpersecuted Church after Constantine's edict of toleration. It was only in this time that bishoprics started to become positions associated with wealth and power. Certainly, by this time (and especially in Rome after its fall in 410, which left a power vacuum filled by the Roman bishop) a bishopric might be something to be sought after. But only a fool would have wanted a bishopric in the early Church.

Morover, all three of these men were directly discipled by the apostles themselves. Do you really think that they all misunderstood the instructions of the apostles that badly or forgot them in such a short time? I'm sorry, but I find that very hard to believe. You don't give the apostles much credit as teachers and judges of character, nor much credance to the guidance of the Holy Spirit if that's what you think. I find it much more likely that they understood exactly what the apostles had taught them, and preserved that teaching faithfully.

Didn't say that at all. The apostles don't teach about a church structure beyond the local church at all. If they were having a problem with heresy and deception, they might consider an authoritative heirarchical structure that included them determining doctrine for the entire church to be a valid way to combat such a problem.

I mean, here is the alternative history that you propose:

30 AD Jesus
30-90 AD The apostles.
70-150 AD The successors of the apostles, who didn't really understand the apostles' teachings and distorted them to suit their own ends.
...
2004 AD themuzicman, who figures out what the apostles really meant, and doesn't distort their teachings to suit his own ends.

Doesn't something seem a little bit amiss there? :shrug:

Only if you assume that the apostles taught specifically about a heirarchical church structure, which they didn't.

Firstly, you still haven't established that all Church doctrine must come from Scripture. You haven't justified justified the inerrancy of Scripture from Scripture, nor have you establish.

Show me scriptural support for another source.

Secondly, the concept of a Church hierarchy does have its roots in the NT. The concept of bishops, priests and deacons actually finds its roots in the NT - the Greek words for these are episcopos (overseer), presbuteros (elder), and daikonos (servant) respectively. The office of the deacon first appeared (though not by name) in Acts 6:1-7, and is contrasted with the tasks that the apostles performed (which though combined at the time, later developed into the bishopric and priesthood). In 1 Peter 5:1, Peter indentifies himself a fellow presbuteros, and addresses the other presbuteroi in the congregation. The terms "episcopos" and "presbuteros" were used more-or-less interchangably in the NT, but developed a separate meaning very early on (ie, 1st century).

And all in reference to the local church.

Peter understood "being carried along by the Holy Spirit" to mean the same thing as "being part of the wider body of Christ". You're trying to create a distinction where the writers would not have seen one.

You're going to have to do more than make an assertion, here. Are you claiming that the church is the Holy Spirit?

Right, so God only had a hand in those bits of Church history that you consider necessary to support your position?

No.

It is a matter of history, and not up for debate, that it was the Church as a whole which determined the canon of Scripture. Here you admit that the Holy Spirit was guiding that process. I guess He was just asleep on the job while the Church developed an episcopacy though, hey?

There's no basis for infallibility. Just because they got one thing right doesn't mean they get everything right.

I'm sorry, but I find it very hard to believe that the Holy Spirit would have allowed generations of Christians to develop an episcopacy without realising the "inherent evils" of it, only to have the Holy Spirit finally guide you into truth to realise the error of the Church's ways for the past 1900 years. It is much more likely that you are mistaken, and the generations of Christians before you are correct.

No one said it was evil, per se.

Of course we must accept their writings. If you don't trust the ECFs, then why would you trust that they had faithfully preserved the writings of the apostles? Why would you trust that they made the right decision when the Biblical canon was formed?

I didn't say that I didn't trust them. I said that they aren't inerrant and infallible.

Then why are you complaining about me "inserting" the Church everywhere? Especially as I've given you historical backing for the fact that it should be inserted, and you've done nothing equivalent...

Historical backing isn't scripture, nor is there a basis for allowing it to alter scripture.

Individuals are sinful and untrustworthy and make mistakes. There's no point relying on an individual interpretation - you need a consensus (as you realised above). And the more members of the Church that you get in your consensus, the better. If everyone in the Church agrees, then it must be true. That's how the Orthodox Church works. That's how it has always worked.

Sorry, but that's not what I realized above.

The NT was written by members of the Church, for members of the Church. The Church is always present as a background. The NT writers and their audiences, as Christians living in a collectivist society, drew their identity as being part of the Church. The Church is thus implicit in all the NT writings. It's not eisegesis at all, it's evaluation of proper historical context.

Who carried the writers along as God spoke? The church or the Holy Spirit?

(Please provide scriptural basis for your answer.)

No, I am saying that the Church is the primary vehicle through which the Holy Spirit works in the world. The Spirit gives different gifts to different individuals, and nowhere does Scripture promise that the gift of correct interpretation will be given to everyone.

Where is this mystical gift of inerrant and infallible interpretation of scripture mentioned? I must have missed it.

Michael

[Jezz]

I'm pointing out that the bible is an inerrant, infallible source for teaching. I then ask you to show where the bible says that the church is an inerrant, infallible source for teaching.
Wow, what a masterful dodge. :smile:

There are three comments I would like to make here:

1. You're begging the question. I can beg the question too, watch:

I'm pointing out that the Church is an inerrant, infallible source for teaching. I then ask you to show where the Church says that the Bible is the sole inerrant, infallible source for teaching.

Fun, isn't it? :smile: If you refuse to play the game on my terms, then why should I play the game on your terms?

2. You are asking me to justify my starting premise (ie, that the Church is infallible) from the Bible. The implication is that if I cannot justify it from the Bible, then it isn't a true Christian doctrine. However, you are unable to justify your own starting premises from the Bible - eg, that all Christian doctrine must come from the Bible. This brings me back to my original question, which is:

3. Where in the Bible does it say that all Christian doctrine comes from the Bible?

Either the Bible does say that all Christian doctrine must come from the Bible, or it does not.

If it does, then please show me where.
If it does not, then your request is self-defeating - because you're holding my premises to a higher standard than that which you are holding your own.

I find that the source of doctrine is prescribed by 1 Tim 3:16. It does not claim to be sola per se, but there is no other teaching as to another source of inerrant, infallible doctrine in the bible.
Begging the same question that I pointed out above. The Bible never says that the Bible is supposed to be the sole source of infallible doctrine.

In fact, there is a legitimate question mark over what Paul actually considered "Scripture" when he wrong 2 Timothy (not 1 Tim) - not all of the NT as we have it now had been written by then, so Paul's instructions did not apply to the Bible as we have it now.

Later on, you go on to say that everyone in the church is the church, but somehow writings came through the church to the church. I feel some waffling about what "the church" really is.
There is no "waffling" - some imprecision perhaps. Allow me to spell it out for you in more precise terms:

1. The Church is the body of Christ - all believers.
2. The NT was written by members of the Church, for members of the Church.

Do you agree that all the NT authors, and their audiences, were members of the Church or not?

Founding member, yes. However, his authority does not stem from being a founding member of the church, nor does it come from being a part of the wider church. His authority comes from the fact that he is being carried along by the Holy Spirit.
False dichotomy. It was because he was a member of the Church that he was carried along by the Holy Spirit, and it was because he was carried along by the Holy Spirit that he was a member of the Church. The two are inextricably intertwined.

So when you make statements of fact regarding Christ and Christians, do you believe that you are communicating from God?

Not as John, Peter and Paul, no.
Then assuming that John, Peter and Paul thought that they were communicating from God simply because they made statements of fact regarding Christ and Christians is a begged question, isn't it?

So, [the apostle's] authority preceeded the church.
No it did not. His authority is inextricably linked with his membership of the Church. Christ came to found a Church - that was His aim. The apostles were the founding members.

However, the source of authority would not be the church or that he was a member of the church, but the Holy Spirit.
Again, a false dichotomy. See above.

Make up your mind. First you said taht they had authority before the apostolic church, and now you're saying that their authority comes from the apostolic church. Can't be both.
I never said that they had authority before the apostolic church. I said that their authority and the authority of the Church were the same thing - because as founding members of the Church, their teaching was authoritative for the Church.

Ah, but Christ is making His bride holy and blameless. She isn't there yet.
Scriptural support please. :wink:

I've gone for option 3: The errors of individual members of the church accumulate over time, and God works at times in the church to steer it back in the right direction, but at no time can the church claim to be infallible.
See, here's the difference between you and me. I say that God doesn't merely work "at times" to steer the Church back in the righ direction - He acts continuously. Why is it you think that God is asleep at the wheel most of the time, letting His Church go astray?

Yup. Read Ephesians 1:3-4. God's purpose was to have a people who are holy and blameless. It doesn't say anything about how many or who.
If you take that verse as meaning that God could save only one person and still have achieved His purpose, then I don't know what to say. God desires all people to be saved. Are you saying that even if He can't do better than 1 in 6 billion, then He's still a winner?

However, Christians are not in the majority.
I didn't claim that they were. I was simply pointting to your factual error of saying that there are as many Muslims as Christians. In contrast to this claim, there are in fact 50% more Christians in the world at present than Muslims.

Looks like God is doing a little better than 1 in 6 billion to me.
Does to me too, but that was not my point. My point was that, according to you, even if He did only achieve 1 in 6 billion, He has still won. Looks like the odds are very firmly stacked in God's favour.

They had most probably been cast out of the church already, because John speaks as though they were no longer with them.

Oh? Sounds to me like they were still dealing with the deception.
Can't deception come from outside the Church?

The Holy Spirit teaches individuals. Individuals are organized into churches, where there are elders who have authority over that church. Those elders are there, in part, to doctrinally direct the local church and to teach. They are taught by the Holy Spirit just as the remainder of the church is. A local church, then, is a body who comes together under the doctrine taught by those local elders, and for a purpose which the elders lead them in. The members, then, led by the Holy Spirit remain in that church solong as the teaching of that church is in harmony with the Holy Spirit.
I don't have much of a problem with that, except that you try to separate the "teaching of individuals" from "teaching of the Church". In a collectivist mindset, the two would not be separated as you are separating them. It is through the teaching of the Church as a group that the Holy Spirit teaches individuals, and it is through teaching individuals that the Holy Spirit teaches the Church.

Likewise, a person cannot internally verify that they have correctly heard the calling of the Spirit - they need an external reference.

Like the bible?
Suppose, for a minute, that I assume that the Bible is the sole source of doctrine (which I dispute - see above), the question still remains: the Bible interpreted according to whom? You and I disagree on our interpretation - which of us is correct?

I see no guarantee in scripture that a group of men will be more infallible than an individual. Group dynamics suggest otherwise.
Same begged question that appeared in your opening paragraph.

"I see no guarantee in the Church that a single person will be able to infallibly interpret scripture. The multitude of different "sola scriptura" interpretations suggest otherwise."

That is why I say the Holy Spirit acts through the Church, and not individuals. Individuals can (and do) distort the Spirit's call. But if you get enough people who have the Spirit together, then the errors will be cancelled out by the greater weight of numbers who have correctly heard the Spirit.

But you never can really tell if the truth has won out.
Sure you can. Jesus promised that it would. You do have faith in Jesus, don't you?

The problem is much worse in your individualist approach anyway - you can never really tell if an individual's interpretation of the Bible is correct.

The apostle that came to them. However, Who did John direct them to in order to be taught? (The Holy Spirit.)
False dichotomy again. The Holy Spirit taught them through the Church. By what medium do you suggest the Holy Spirit taught them?

You're right - you don't have to swallow everything that someone claiming to be from the wider Church says. But when two, three, four... entire churches... all start telling you that you've got something wrong, then it is much more likely that you have got it wrong than that everyone else has.

Like the Mormons?
The Mormons are a perfect example of how not to do it, in fact. From their very beginnings, they ignored the teaching of all the churches around them, assuming that everyone else was apostate and that they were the True Christian Church(TM).

In fact, the Mormon approach is disturbingly like the approach that you are advocating - the Mormons have the idea of the "burning in the bosom" or "internal witness of the Holy Spirit" that teaches each Mormon that the BoM is true. His critique of this approach applies equally to yourself. See here (http://www.tektonics.org/insidejob.html).

Make up your mind. First the Word comes to us through the church, and now you say that we are the church. Which is it?
Again, a false dichotomy that comes about as a result of your individualist-oriented mindset. It is both. The Word comes to us through the Church, and we are the Church.

Maybe. Then again, there's nothing in scripture to show any authority structure beyond the local church, either.
There's nothing in Scripture to show that the makeup of the canon of Scripture either. Does that mean it's not true? Please refer also my opening paragraph.

Probably a good motivation. They wanted to stamp our heresy and fight those who were deceiving the church and such. Lots of unscriptural things get started with the best of motives.
Same begged question that "unscriptural" = "non-authoritative". If their methods were necessary to stamp out heresy, then why are they not still necessary for today?

No question that they were courageous in standing up.
:thumb:

Didn't say that at all. The apostles don't teach about a church structure beyond the local church at all.
Correction: In the extant writings that we have from the apostles, there is no mentioning of a Church structure beyond the local church at all. To claim that they didn't teach about such a structure is an argument from silence - there is no indication that everything that the apostles taught was written down.

But even that isn't true. Read Acts 11:19-30, specifically v22: News of this reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. If the church at Antioch required no oversight from another church, then why did the church at Jerusalem send Barnabas there? Why did he and Paul stay there for a year to teach the Church?

If they were having a problem with heresy and deception, they might consider an authoritative heirarchical structure that included them determining doctrine for the entire church to be a valid way to combat such a problem.
The authoritative hierarchical structure of the Church was mainly jurisdictional/governmental - there was no authority in matters of faith. All bishops were regarded as equal in their preservation of the faith - at councils that determined matters of faith, the vote of each bishop carried equal weight. Again, you're thinking of the RCC, which taught that bishops higher up had greater authority in determining matters of faith than the other bishops did. As far as faith goes, the Church has always taught that each church under a bishop is self-contained. Though of course, a single church may err, at which point the other churches will try to convince them that they have erred, or failing that break communion with them.

Only if you assume that the apostles taught specifically about a heirarchical church structure, which they didn't.
1. Again, this is an argument from silence. For all you know, the apostles may indeed have taught about a hierarchical church structure. The fact that it emerged so quickly is strongly indicative that they did, or at least that they never gave a strong indication that hierarchy is a bad thing.
2. You are again, I think, confusing governmental authority with authority in matters of faith. All bishops were equal in the latter respect.

Show me scriptural support for another source.
Show me scriptural support for the idea that the Bible is the only source. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. See the opening paragraph for more detail.

And all in reference to the local church.
That is true. I think we had a miscommunication as to what I (and the Orthodox) meant regarding hierarchy. There was no hierarchy of faith - all bishops were equals, and faith was maintained by consensus. Those bishops who deviated from the consensus were excommunicated by the others.

You're going to have to do more than make an assertion, here. Are you claiming that the church is the Holy Spirit?
I've already said it numerous times - the Church is the primary vessel through which the Holy Spirit acts.

I also find it amusing that you demand that I do more than make this assertion - so far, all you've done is assert that I am wrong. :smile:

There's no basis for infallibility. Just because they got one thing right doesn't mean they get everything right.
What makes you so sure that they got it right? If you don't trust their ability to get it right, then why trust the Biblical canon that they gave us? And if you do trust their ability to get the Biblical canon right, then what reason can you give me for not trusting all the other decisions that they arrived at by the same process?

No one said it was evil, per se.
Then what is the problem?

I didn't say that I didn't trust them. I said that they aren't inerrant and infallible.
The Bible is only as infallible as those who preserved it for us. As I asked above: if their decision process is not inerrant, then what makes you so sure that they didn't make an error when they formed the NT canon?

Historical backing isn't scripture, nor is there a basis for allowing it to alter scripture.
Scripture without historical backing is wide open for misinterpretation. Historical backing as I am using it does not alter Scripture - it aids correct interpetation.

There's no point relying on an individual interpretation - you need a consensus (as you realised above).

Sorry, but that's not what I realized above.
Then what did you mean when you wrote: "How would the people John wrote to know who was who, unless they individually were able to learn from the Holy Spirit and discern the truth, and then come together to reach a consensus from what the Spirit had told each of them?"

Is consensus necessary or not?

Who carried the writers along as God spoke? The church or the Holy Spirit?
As I have pointed out several times already in this post and previous posts, the answer is "both". The Church is the primary vehicle of the Holy Spirit.

(Please provide scriptural basis for your answer.)
I tell you what: I'll provide scriptural basis for my answer, as soon as you provide scriptural basis for your idea that every answer must have a scriptural basis. :deal: Please refer to my opening paragraph.

Where is this mystical gift of inerrant and infallible interpretation of scripture mentioned? I must have missed it.
Irenaeus mentioned it. Tertullian mentioned it. Those who adhered to the traditions passed down to them by their predecessors - they are the ones that know the correct interpretation of Scripture. Note that Irenaeus knew people who knew the apostles personally (eg, Polycarp, who discipled under John).

[Jude3b]

The Mark of the Beast and the papacy.

The "mark of the beat" refers to the papacy. How did the papcy mark its subjects? Undoubtedly by the false spirit which animated from that organization, branding them with its delusive doctrines and errors. In making the sect image (denominational image) in imitation of the papal original, then, the principle of marking subjects has also been copied. The members of every sect (denomination) organization are indelibly marked.

What has denominationalism done for the world? You can not become a member of a denomination without solemnly agreeing to believe the doctrines taught in their discipline and accepting the government of their man made institution. Subscribing to the rules of faith and practice that originated with the sect (denomination) shows how its members worship the image.

How is this fulfilled? In the same manner that the worshipers of the first beast worshiped the dragon that preceded it; namely, by accepting and believing false principles of faith that originated in the system immediately preceding. Protestant sects (denominations) have transferred many of the false doctrines of Romanism to their own creeds; hence they worshp the first beast just as truly as the papalists worship the dragon by accepting heathenish principles.

The greatest principle of false doctrine that originated with Catholicism, and one that has been transferred to every Protestant sect, is, that a human organization is necessary to complete the church of Christ on earth.

The church of Rome has an earthly head and a human government; and Protestants also firmly believe the unscriptural doctrine that they must bow to an organization of men and thus be under a visible human headship: they receive the mark of the beast.

Many sects (denominations) have also copied other popish doctrines, such as infant baptism, the destruction of all outside the pales of the church (?), infantile damnation, sprinkling, etc. Thus, the worship of the first beast as well as his image.

[BlackOpal12]

The Mark of the Beast and the papacy.

The "mark of the beat" refers to the papacy. How did the papcy mark its subjects? Undoubtedly by the false spirit which animated from that organization, branding them with its delusive doctrines and errors. In making the sect image (denominational image) in imitation of the papal original, then, the principle of marking subjects has also been copied. The members of every sect (denomination) organization are indelibly marked.

What has denominationalism done for the world? You can not become a member of a denomination without solemnly agreeing to believe the doctrines taught in their discipline and accepting the government of their man made institution. Subscribing to the rules of faith and practice that originated with the sect (denomination) shows how its members worship the image.

How is this fulfilled? In the same manner that the worshipers of the first beast worshiped the dragon that preceded it; namely, by accepting and believing false principles of faith that originated in the system immediately preceding. Protestant sects (denominations) have transferred many of the false doctrines of Romanism to their own creeds; hence they worshp the first beast just as truly as the papalists worship the dragon by accepting heathenish principles.

The greatest principle of false doctrine that originated with Catholicism, and one that has been transferred to every Protestant sect, is, that a human organization is necessary to complete the church of Christ on earth.

The church of Rome has an earthly head and a human government; and Protestants also firmly believe the unscriptural doctrine that they must bow to an organization of men and thus be under a visible human headship: they receive the mark of the beast.

Many sects (denominations) have also copied other popish doctrines, such as infant baptism, the destruction of all outside the pales of the church (?), infantile damnation, sprinkling, etc. Thus, the worship of the first beast as well as his image.

So what you're saying, basically, is "Nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah, I can't hear you, I can't hear you, I can't hear you" in response to Jezz' extremely well though-out, well argued, and well...long... post.

There's a Cyndi Lauper/Phil Collins song that I think would really be applicable here...well, the title at least. Its called "True Colors."

Keep up the good work, Jezz, even if no-one seems to be listening.

Namaste,
The Opal

[Jude3b]

The Mark of the Beast and the papacy.

The "mark of the beat" refers to the papacy. How did the papcy mark its subjects? Undoubtedly by the false spirit which animated from that organization, branding them with its delusive doctrines and errors. In making the sect image (denominational image) in imitation of the papal original, then, the principle of marking subjects has also been copied. The members of every sect (denomination) organization are indelibly marked.

What has denominationalism done for the world? You can not become a member of a denomination without solemnly agreeing to believe the doctrines taught in their discipline and accepting the government of their man made institution. Subscribing to the rules of faith and practice that originated with the sect (denomination) shows how its members worship the image.

How is this fulfilled? In the same manner that the worshipers of the first beast worshiped the dragon that preceded it; namely, by accepting and believing false principles of faith that originated in the system immediately preceding. Protestant sects (denominations) have transferred many of the false doctrines of Romanism to their own creeds; hence they worshp the first beast just as truly as the papalists worship the dragon by accepting heathenish principles.

The greatest principle of false doctrine that originated with Catholicism, and one that has been transferred to every Protestant sect, is, that a human organization is necessary to complete the church of Christ on earth.

The church of Rome has an earthly head and a human government; and Protestants also firmly believe the unscriptural doctrine that they must bow to an organization of men and thus be under a visible human headship: they receive the mark of the beast.

Many sects (denominations) have also copied other popish doctrines, such as infant baptism, the destruction of all outside the pales of the church (?), infantile damnation, sprinkling, etc. Thus, the worship of the first beast as well as his image.

The greatest ecclesiastical usurpation reached by the Roman hierarchy was that of claiming to be the head of the church and to possess the right to prescribe and enforce their false doctrines, naming their organization the Holy Catholic Church. In naming their denominations in imitation, Protestants have transferred the same principle, and they make disciplines to govern God's people, and then name their sect machinery a church of God. The name may be Methodist, Baptist, Episcopalian, or what not, it is only a "beast" name, yet a name that you must accept if you desire to become one of them.

[BlackOpal12]

So was that a yes to the "Nyah nyah nyah" thing? I'm going to assume it as such.

Just checking.

[Jude3b]

The greatest ecclesiastical usurpation reached by the Roman hierarchy was that of claiming to be the head of the church and to possess the right to prescribe and enforce their false doctrines, naming their organization the Holy Catholic Church. In naming their denominations in imitation, Protestants have transferred the same principle, and they make disciplines to govern God's people, and then name their sect machinery a church of God. The name may be Methodist, Baptist, Episcopalian, or what not, it is only a "beast" name, yet a name that you must accept if you desire to become one of them.

One more point on this subject - The Protestant denominations not only receive the name of the beast, but also receive the "number of the name." In some manner the worshipers of Protestant images also receive the number of this name - 666. The name is that of "Vicar of the Son of God." In all of Protestant and Roman Catholic denominationalism - the true Vicars of Christ on earth - the Word and Spirit of God - have been set aside, and conferences of men have taken their places in all the official acts relative to spiritual affairs. Hence the number of the name applies to Protestant denominations and Romanism alike.

[Amazing Rando]

:shocked: Ah, so Catholics, and Protestants now bear the mark of the beast, do we Jude? How about Eastern Orthodox churches? Care to complete the trifecta? If you do, you'll have covered every Christian and Church throughout all of Christian history. Go for the Gold, Jude!

[themuzicman]

Wow, what a masterful dodge. :smile:

There are three comments I would like to make here:

1. You're begging the question. I can beg the question too, watch:

I'm pointing out that the Church is an inerrant, infallible source for teaching. I then ask you to show where the Church says that the Bible is the sole inerrant, infallible source for teaching.

Since the topic of the thread is denominationalism and orthodoxy, and you've asserted that the church is the source for infallible doctrine, it is certainly reasonable for me to ask you to support that from scripture.

Fun, isn't it? :smile: If you refuse to play the game on my terms, then why should I play the game on your terms?

2. You are asking me to justify my starting premise (ie, that the Church is infallible) from the Bible. The implication is that if I cannot justify it from the Bible, then it isn't a true Christian doctrine. However, you are unable to justify your own starting premises from the Bible - eg, that all Christian doctrine must come from the Bible. This brings me back to my original question, which is:

3. Where in the Bible does it say that all Christian doctrine comes from the Bible?

Either the Bible does say that all Christian doctrine must come from the Bible, or it does not.

If it does, then please show me where.
If it does not, then your request is self-defeating - because you're holding my premises to a higher standard than that which you are holding your own.

If you'd like to open a thread about whether the bible is the sole source of doctrine, that's fine. Your error here is that you are moving off topic.

I've not asserted specifically that the bible must be the only source of doctrine, but only that I find no other source of infallibility except the bible.



Now, you've asserted that 1) the authority of the NT writers came from the church, and 2) that the Holy Spirit primarily works through the church, neither of which you've demonstrated from an authoritative source.

Your problem is that if the Church is the source of the authority of the writings, but you only have the writings to demonstrate that the church has authority. Your reasoning winds up being circular.

Furthermore, you've not shown where the church draws this infallible authority from. You claim that the church must be infallibly authoritative, yet your claim is based upon the Holy Spirit primarily working through the church, which, agian, is nothing more than a claim.


To be honest, I get the feeling as though you're using "the church" in two different senses, and intermingling them. You say that the church is every member of the church, yet when you claim authority, it appears that this authority lies in the papacy of your church, and not the church which is all of us. Maybe you could clarify this. Earlier you claimed that the church could not simply arrive at a consensus, but if we are to take your definition of the church and it infallibility, that is where we must ultimately go, unless there is a different "the church" which makes the infallible conclusions.

So, if you could clear up these items, it would help.


1. The Church is the body of Christ - all believers.
2. The NT was written by members of the Church, for members of the Church.

Do you agree that all the NT authors, and their audiences, were members of the Church or not?

Maybe the real question is whether just any member of the Church could write infallible scripture, or on what basis some church members' writings are NOT scripture and some are (like, say, Thomas.)

False dichotomy. It was because he was a member of the Church that he was carried along by the Holy Spirit, and it was because he was carried along by the Holy Spirit that he was a member of the Church. The two are inextricably intertwined.

Is every member of the church so carried along? If so, could any member of the church write scripture?

Ah, but Christ is making His bride holy and blameless. She isn't there yet.Scriptural support please.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.

What is interesting here is that Paul uses the subjuctive, which is the tense of contingency. If he wanted to assert that these were complete, he'd use the indicative. But he doesn't. Thus, the sanctification of the church is ongoing, and not yet complete.

See, here's the difference between you and me. I say that God doesn't merely work "at times" to steer the Church back in the righ direction - He acts continuously. Why is it you think that God is asleep at the wheel most of the time, letting His Church go astray?

Asleep at the wheel? Or dealing with fallen, errant people who have their own will?

Perhaps you've forgotten the crusades or the witch trials which were conducted by the church. Clearly the church has gone astray at times, including their claim to infallibility.

If you take that verse as meaning that God could save only one person and still have achieved His purpose, then I don't know what to say. God desires all people to be saved. Are you saying that even if He can't do better than 1 in 6 billion, then He's still a winner?

What's the number, then? Half?

Can't deception come from outside the Church?

Sure. Just as it can come from within.

The Bible is only as infallible as those who preserved it for us.

Oh, really? Is that why we have to deal with scribal errors and insertions in the copied texts?

Suppose, for a minute, that I assume that the Bible is the sole source of doctrine (which I dispute - see above), the question still remains: the Bible interpreted according to whom? You and I disagree on our interpretation - which of us is correct?

The Holy Spirit is correct. That's the point of 1 John 2:27.

"I see no guarantee in the Church that a single person will be able to infallibly interpret scripture. The multitude of different "sola scriptura" interpretations suggest otherwise."

I agree. There is no infallible source of teaching from any man or group of men, today.

Sure you can. Jesus promised that it would. You do have faith in Jesus, don't you?

Sure. And HE sent the Holy Spirit to teach me. Not the church.

The problem is much worse in your individualist approach anyway - you can never really tell if an individual's interpretation of the Bible is correct.


Who cares? That's why we have the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit taught them through the Church. By what medium do you suggest the Holy Spirit taught them?

Who says we need a medium? Do we not all have the Holy Spirit already? (Are you saying that the CHURCH is the intermediary between God and man?)

The Mormons are a perfect example of how not to do it, in fact. From their very beginnings, they ignored the teaching of all the churches around them, assuming that everyone else was apostate and that they were the True Christian Church(TM).

And? Do you think they DO follow the Holy Spirit?

Correction: In the extant writings that we have from the apostles, there is no mentioning of a Church structure beyond the local church at all. To claim that they didn't teach about such a structure is an argument from silence - there is no indication that everything that the apostles taught was written down.

Well, you'd think that if God thought your church structure was important, He'd have preserved that, wouldn't you?

But even that isn't true. Read Acts 11:19-30, specifically v22: News of this reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. If the church at Antioch required no oversight from another church, then why did the church at Jerusalem send Barnabas there? Why did he and Paul stay there for a year to teach the Church?

You assume oversight, and then tell us the real reason for Paul and Barnabas to stay there: To Teach.

The authoritative hierarchical structure of the Church was mainly jurisdictional/governmental - there was no authority in matters of faith. All bishops were regarded as equal in their preservation of the faith - at councils that determined matters of faith, the vote of each bishop carried equal weight.

But they also carry the assumption of infallibility as a group.

What makes you so sure that they got it right? If you don't trust their ability to get it right, then why trust the Biblical canon that they gave us? And if you do trust their ability to get the Biblical canon right, then what reason can you give me for not trusting all the other decisions that they arrived at by the same process?

Generally, we dont' have a lot of choice but to accept the canon as is. However, the Holy Spirit confirms the Word of God to us.

"How would the people John wrote to know who was who, unless they individually were able to learn from the Holy Spirit and discern the truth, and then come together to reach a consensus from what the Spirit had told each of them?"

Is consensus necessary or not?

For an individual, no. The Holy Spirit communicates truth to each person. Now, individuals may misinterpret what they Spirit tells them, which is why the church should come together and listen to each other. Neither is infallible, tho.

I tell you what: I'll provide scriptural basis for my answer, as soon as you provide scriptural basis for your idea that every answer must have a scriptural basis.

Asking for a circular argument? :wink:

Why bother having a bible, then? Why not just listen to what the church says now, since you obviously think we can add whatever we wish to scripture, and call it infallible?

Any coherant religion MUST have a text upon which it tests all truth. Otherwise you wind up like the Unitarians.

Michael

[Jezz]

Since the topic of the thread is denominationalism and orthodoxy, and you've asserted that the church is the source for infallible doctrine, it is certainly reasonable for me to ask you to support that from scripture.
You're still begging the same question.

"As you've asserted that the Bible is the source for infallible doctrine, it is certainly reasonable for me to ask you to support that from the Church tradition."

Do you see the point I am trying to make?

If you'd like to open a thread about whether the bible is the sole source of doctrine, that's fine. Your error here is that you are moving off topic.
It is true that this is getting off topic, but you leave me little recourse when you insist on Biblical support for everything that I say.

I think you are right, this is worth starting a new thread - I will do so later.

I've not asserted specifically that the bible must be the only source of doctrine, but only that I find no other source of infallibility except the bible.
No, you've not asserted it specifically, but you repeatedly assert it implictily. Every time you demand Biblical support for any of my doctrinal claims, you are implicitly asserting that the Bible must be the only source of doctrine.

Now, you've asserted that 1) the authority of the NT writers came from the church, and 2) that the Holy Spirit primarily works through the church, neither of which you've demonstrated from an authoritative source.
It is a teaching of the Church, and the Church is the authoritative source on such matters.

To be honest, I get the feeling as though you're using "the church" in two different senses, and intermingling them. You say that the church is every member of the church, yet when you claim authority, it appears that this authority lies in the papacy of your church, and not the church which is all of us. Maybe you could clarify this.
Ok, I think I understand your confusion. This is the confusion that tizzidale repeatedly referred to.

When I (and tizzidale, for that matter) say "the Church" (capital C with no further qualifiers), I mean the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - which, in Orthodox terminology, specifically means the Orthodox Church. The reason I don't typically bother with the "Orthodox" in front is 1. because I'm lazy, 2. because that's how the Orthodox use the term, 3. because for the first millenium, there was pretty much no church other than the Orthodox Church, so the are interchangeable for that period (which is the period we are mostly discussing). The alternative is to use "Orthodox Church" every time, except then sometimes I will get accused of arrogance when I try and apply it to the early Church. :shrug:

When I use "church" with a small letter, or as part of a title (eg, the Roman Catholic Church, or the Church of Antioch, Lutheran Church, etc), then I am not referring to the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, but to a human institution. Note that not all such churches are considered, in Orthodox thinking, to be part of the Church - only those in communion with the other Orthodox Churches are. So the RCC and the Lutheran Church, for example, are not considered part of the Church. When I say "the Church has the authority to make doctrinal declarations", I am not including the RCC or the Lutherans or the Anglicans etc. as part of the Church. They are considered to be in schism from the Church, because they are incorrect on some points of doctrine.

Note: Individual members of these churches might be invisibly connected to the Church in a sense that only God knows and understands.

Also note: the Orthodox Church is not a single church. It is a communion of churches - at present, there are 19 such churches (see here (http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Churches/index.htm)). Some of these (Jerusalem, Antioch) have been there from the very beginning.

Earlier you claimed that the church could not simply arrive at a consensus, but if we are to take your definition of the church and it infallibility, that is where we must ultimately go, unless there is a different "the church" which makes the infallible conclusions.
When did I claim that the Church could not simply arrive at a consensus? A single church can arrive at a consensus, but such a consensus, while authoritiative for that church, is not infallible and may be overturned. However, the entire Church can arrive at a consensus, and does, and has in each of the 7 Ecumenical Councils.

Maybe the real question is whether just any member of the Church could write infallible scripture, or on what basis some church members' writings are NOT scripture and some are (like, say, Thomas.)
No, the real question is how does one determine what is infallible Scripture and what is not. After all, there's not much point having infallible Scripture if it's all mixed in with the fallible stuff and you can't figure out which is which! The answer to this is that the Church made this determination in the 4th century. Unless the Church's determination at the council which set the canon was infallible, guided by the Holy Spirit, then the Bible cannot be trusted as infallible. And that's the problem with your position - you either blindly trust the Bible as infallible, or you have to implicitly assume my position - ie, that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth.

Is every member of the church so carried along? If so, could any member of the church write scripture?
To the first question: yes, but individuals will ignore the Spirit's call to a greater or lesser extent.

Yes, any member of the Church can write scripture - in fact, in Greek that would be a tautology (the word for "scripture" and "writing" are the same in Greek - the idiom "the writings" is the one that we translate "the Scriptures"). It will be inspired to a greater or lesser extent, depending on how strongly the Holy Spirit is present in that person. The Church will make the determination as to what level of honour to accord that particular piece of writing.

(Remember that "the Church" = "the Orthodox Church")

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.

What is interesting here is that Paul uses the subjuctive, which is the tense of contingency. If he wanted to assert that these were complete, he'd use the indicative. But he doesn't. Thus, the sanctification of the church is ongoing, and not yet complete.
Yes Paul uses the subjunctive (indicating a future occurrence), but he is narrating from a point of view of an event that occurred in the past. The "giving of Himself up for her" has already happened, has it not? Therefore, if that is what Christ did to sanctify the Church, then He has already sanctified it. To see what I mean, consider this sentence:

Yesterday I went to work, so that I might earn a day's wage, and having been remunerated I might spend the money on a nice meal at a restaurant.

Now, I've used subjunctive, but my intent is that, from the point-in-time in which I exist, the earning of the day's wage and the eating of the nice meal at the restaurant are both past events.

Likewise, in the passage that you quoted, Chist has already given Himself up for the Church, and in dying and rising He has already santified the Church - cleansed her by the washing of water with the word. And here's the key point that undermines your interpretation: "that He might present Himself to the Church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle..." According to you, this is still future. In other words, Christ is not yet married to the Church. Is the Church the bride of Christ or not?

I'll also note that using a faulty meaning of "holiness"/"sanctification" - however, this is not immediately relevant to the above point, so I won't go any further into that topic now.

Asleep at the wheel? Or dealing with fallen, errant people who have their own will?
Either God cannot have His will done for His Church despite it containing errant members, or He can. Which do you think? This gets back to the question: "Do the errors cancel out, or do they accumulate?

Perhaps you've forgotten the crusades or the witch trials which were conducted by the church. Clearly the church has gone astray at times, including their claim to infallibility.
The crusades and witch trials were both conducted by a schismatic church (specifically, the Roman Catholic Church, which ceased to be a part of the Church sometime around 1054).

But anyway, when I talk about infallibility, I am of course talking about infallibility in matters of official doctrine and preservation of the faith.

What's the number, then? Half?
I don't know. More than one, though.

Muz: But [the deceivers in 1 John] were with them. They were in the church, and were probably still claiming to be a part of the church.

Jezz: They had most probably been cast out of the church already, because John speaks as though they were no longer with them.

Muz: Oh? Sounds to me like they were still dealing with the deception.

Jezz: Can't deception come from outside the Church?

Muz: Sure. Just as it can come from within.
I included the full context there because you seem to have forgotten the original point.

You claimed that the deceivers were still part of the local church. I claimed that they had probably already been cast out. You then claimed that they were still dealing with the deception - implication being that this proved that the deception came from within the Church. Now that you have admitted that deception can come from outside the Church, you have undermined your argument that the deceivers must still have been part of the Church.

As I said, it is likely that the deceivers had already been cast out.

Oh, really? Is that why we have to deal with scribal errors and insertions in the copied texts?
Who cares about scribal errors? Do they change the faith of the Church at all? I do not know of a single scribal error that affects the faith of the Church.

The Holy Spirit is correct. That's the point of 1 John 2:27.
I guess that means that you're wrong then, because I what I am telling you has come from the Holy Spirit. You, on the other hand, have clearly distorted the Spirit's call.

Do you now see the problem in your position? People on both sides of any debate claim to be guided by the Spirit when they make their decision. That's why you can't take any one person's opinion by themselves - you need a consensus.

"I see no guarantee in the Church that a single person will be able to infallibly interpret scripture. The multitude of different "sola scriptura" interpretations suggest otherwise."

I agree. There is no infallible source of teaching from any man or group of men, today.
Don't put words in my mouth... :smile:

The Church (that is, the Orthodox Church) is the infallible source of teaching today. Just as it was in the beginning when it assumed the authority to let Gentiles into the Church, when it assumed the authority at the Council of Jerusalem to permit Christians to no longer observe the ritual purity laws (Acts 15), as it was when the Gnostic heretics were being fought, as it was when the canon of Scripture was being formed.and will be forevermore.

Sure. And HE sent the Holy Spirit to teach me. Not the church.
Where is your name in the Bible? I don't see anywhere in the Bible where it says that God would send you personally the Holy Spirit. You were never a member of the audiences being addressed. That Jesus/Paul/whoever meant to include you personally among those whom they were addressing is an assumption on your part - one supported by tradition of interpretation, and not by the text itself.

The problem is much worse in your individualist approach anyway - you can never really tell if an individual's interpretation of the Bible is correct.

Who cares? That's why we have the Holy Spirit.
Begged question. If you as an individual have not interpreted the Bible correctly, then you cannot be sure if you do have the Holy Spirit, can you?

Who says we need a medium? Do we not all have the Holy Spirit already? (Are you saying that the CHURCH is the intermediary between God and man?)
The Holy Spirit always works through a medium because He is invisible and incorporeal. You say that the medium is the individual, I say it is the Church as a whole.

In answer to your attempt to trick me: of course, Christ is the mediator between God and man. But Christ, being truly human, is also a part of the Church - its head, the high priest of the order of Melchizidek. It is by beming members of the body of Christ (ie, the Church), that we receive His Spirit.

And? Do you think they DO follow the Holy Spirit?
I think that they strongly distort the Spirit's message with their own teaching. That is my point. That's what happens when you rely on "internal witness" and claim that you don't need external validation.

Well, you'd think that if God thought your church structure was important, He'd have preserved that, wouldn't you?
Yes, I do think that he would have preserved it. And I think here that you've shot yourself in the foot, because the fact is that He has preserved it. The bulk of Christians today still have that Church structure: 80m Anglicans, 1b Catholics, 250m Orthodox - even the Lutherans and many Protestant denoms have the same heirarchical structures in place (even if they use different names for the various positions - eg, we have "pastor", "district", and "district president" instead of "priest", "diocese" and "bishop", but the positions are the same).

You assume oversight, and then tell us the real reason for Paul and Barnabas to stay there: To Teach.
As if teaching was not an authorititative position? Isn't a teacher a person who oversees the learning of his pupils?

Also, what need would they have for Paul and Barnabas to teach them, if (as you say) it was the Holy Spirit that taught them? Answer: because it was through Paul and Barnabas that the Holy Spirit did His teaching.

But they also carry the assumption of infallibility as a group.
Yes. And? Do you think that they were infallible when they decided upon the canon of Scripture?

Generally, we dont' have a lot of choice but to accept the canon as is. However, the Holy Spirit confirms the Word of God to us.
You mean, we have to accept the tradition of the canon of Scripture as it was handed down to us? Why do you ignore all the other traditions then, or think yourself in a position to be able to determine which traditions apply and which do not?

As for the Holy Spirit confirming the Word of God to us... well, the Mormons claim essentially the same thing of the BoM. If you wish your faith to be as blind as that of the Mormons... well...

For an individual, no. The Holy Spirit communicates truth to each person. Now, individuals may misinterpret what they Spirit tells them, which is why the church should come together and listen to each other. Neither is infallible, tho.

I tell you what: I'll provide scriptural basis for my answer, as soon as you provide scriptural basis for your idea that every answer must have a scriptural basis.

Asking for a circular argument? :wink:
Not exactly. I'm just asking you to hold yourself to the same standard that you are trying to hold me to. Why is it fair for you to insist that every proposition I put forward must have a Biblical basis, when your foundational proposition (ie, that all propositions must have a Biblical basis) itself does not have a Biblical basis? You're asking me to play by a more stringent set of rules than you are allowing yourself to play by - stacking the deck.

Why bother having a bible, then? Why not just listen to what the church says now, since you obviously think we can add whatever we wish to scripture, and call it infallible?
Yes, we should just listen to what the Church (Orthodox Church, that is) says now. That is the source of all doctrine. And among the things that they are saying is that the Bible is the word of God. And that is why we bother having it - because the Church tells us that we should. If you through out the Bible, then you would not be listening to what the Church says now.

However, you are including yourself in the Church when you say "we can add...". But you are not. Therefore, you don't have voting rights in determining what is infallible.

Any coherant religion MUST have a text upon which it tests all truth. Otherwise you wind up like the Unitarians.
Rubbish! What a very modern, Westo-centric and arrogant attitude to have. Are you saying that illiterate societies cannot have coherent religion? Which text did Abraham and Noah base their religions on, centuries before the Torah was written? Perhaps you claim that these righteous and Godly men did not have a coherent religion? What about the fact that most of the Church, especially in the early part of its history, was illiterate? Was their religion incoherent until the Bible was finalised three centuries later? No, it is not necessary to have a text in order to have a coherent religion.

You are, however, correct in saying that every coherent religion needs to have a standard of truth by which all truth could be measured. What was this standard of truth for the apostles? Christ Himself, of course. When He returned to be with the Father, how was this truth preserved? The apostles, whom Christ Himself hand-picked, preserved it between them, and taught others in the same way. And in this way, the Church was formed - with Christ Himself being the founding member.

What did Paul say was the standard of truth? In an earlier post, when talking about where the Bible tells you what the source of all Christian doctrine was, you referred to 1 Timothy 3:16 when in fact you meant 2 Timothy 3:16. I think this was a Freudian slip (or perhaps the Holy Spirit working through you, without you realising? :smile:). When I looked up 1 Tim 3:16, I read the whole chapter preceding it. This is where Paul talks about the structure of the Church - with deacons and bishops. Finally, he explains why he is giving all these instructions to do with the structure of the Church:

14Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

There you have it - straight from the Bible itself. You claim that every coherent religion must have a pillar and ground of truth, against which everything must be tested. And the Bible tells you that that pillar is the Church itself. If if you axiomatically (and inconsistently) take it that all doctrine must come from the Bible, my position automatically follows.

[themuzicman]

No, you've not asserted it specifically, but you repeatedly assert it implictily. Every time you demand Biblical support for any of my doctrinal claims, you are implicitly asserting that the Bible must be the only source of doctrine.

Well, until you can prove that there is another authoritative source, I have no other standard by which to judge.

It is a teaching of the Church, and the Church is the authoritative source on such matters.

However, your assertion does not make it authoritative.

Ok, I think I understand your confusion. This is the confusion that tizzidale repeatedly referred to.

When I (and tizzidale, for that matter) say "the Church" (capital C with no further qualifiers), I mean the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - which, in Orthodox terminology, specifically means the Orthodox Church. The reason I don't typically bother with the "Orthodox" in front is 1. because I'm lazy, 2. because that's how the Orthodox use the term, 3. because for the first millenium, there was pretty much no church other than the Orthodox Church, so the are interchangeable for that period (which is the period we are mostly discussing). The alternative is to use "Orthodox Church" every time, except then sometimes I will get accused of arrogance when I try and apply it to the early Church. :shrug:

When I use "church" with a small letter, or as part of a title (eg, the Roman Catholic Church, or the Church of Antioch, Lutheran Church, etc), then I am not referring to the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, but to a human institution. Note that not all such churches are considered, in Orthodox thinking, to be part of the Church - only those in communion with the other Orthodox Churches are. So the RCC and the Lutheran Church, for example, are not considered part of the Church. When I say "the Church has the authority to make doctrinal declarations", I am not including the RCC or the Lutherans or the Anglicans etc. as part of the Church. They are considered to be in schism from the Church, because they are incorrect on some points of doctrine.

And that, too, you'll have to prove somehow. I have a couple of issues with Orthodox creeds, but I suppose we'll have to get to that later.

No, the real question is how does one determine what is infallible Scripture and what is not. After all, there's not much point having infallible Scripture if it's all mixed in with the fallible stuff and you can't figure out which is which! The answer to this is that the Church made this determination in the 4th century. Unless the Church's determination at the council which set the canon was infallible, guided by the Holy Spirit, then the Bible cannot be trusted as infallible. And that's the problem with your position - you either blindly trust the Bible as infallible, or you have to implicitly assume my position - ie, that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth.

Or that the Church got it right that time, in spite of being fallible. Fallibility doesn't mean one is always wrong.

Yes, any member of the Church can write scripture - in fact, in Greek that would be a tautology (the word for "scripture" and "writing" are the same in Greek - the idiom "the writings" is the one that we translate "the Scriptures"). It will be inspired to a greater or lesser extent, depending on how strongly the Holy Spirit is present in that person. The Church will make the determination as to what level of honour to accord that particular piece of writing.

(Remember that "the Church" = "the Orthodox Church")

So, the Orthodox Church doesn't think the canon is necessarily closed, since any member of the Church can add to it?

Yes Paul uses the subjunctive (indicating a future occurrence),

Subjuctive implies contingincy, not future.

but he is narrating from a point of view of an event that occurred in the past. The "giving of Himself up for her" has already happened, has it not? Therefore, if that is what Christ did to sanctify the Church, then He has already sanctified it. To see what I mean, consider this sentence:

Yesterday I went to work, so that I might earn a day's wage, and having been remunerated I might spend the money on a nice meal at a restaurant.

Now, I've used subjunctive, but my intent is that, from the point-in-time in which I exist, the earning of the day's wage and the eating of the nice meal at the restaurant are both past events.

They may have been past events. You didn't tell us whether you earned that wage, nor did you tell us if you've been to that restaurant. You just told us your intent as of that moment.

Now, since the church is supposed to be holy and blameless (Eph 1:4), you need to show that every member of the church (or is it Church?) is blameless. Are you claiming that every member of the church (or Church) no longer sins?

Likewise, in the passage that you quoted, Chist has already given Himself up for the Church, and in dying and rising He has already santified the Church - cleansed her by the washing of water with the word. And here's the key point that undermines your interpretation: "that He might present Himself to the Church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle..." According to you, this is still future. In other words, Christ is not yet married to the Church. Is the Church the bride of Christ or not?

The bride, yes. However, the bride has not yet been presented to the groom. Remember that Christ went away to prepare a place for us, just as a Jewish husband will go away to prepare a place for his bride before he returns to the marriage ceremony and feast. Christ has not returned, and neither are we now sanctified.

I'll also note that using a faulty meaning of "holiness"/"sanctification" - however, this is not immediately relevant to the above point, so I won't go any further into that topic now.

You might want to deal with "blameless", too.

Either God cannot have His will done for His Church despite it containing errant members, or He can. Which do you think? This gets back to the question: "Do the errors cancel out, or do they accumulate?

You're making the error of the false dichotomy. There will be those in the church who are in error, and those who are not. Those in each group will be fluid as you move from issue to issue and as you move over time. So, it's not that the church must continuously move in one direction or the other, but the direction of the church is more or less determined by which individuals and groups hold sway in a given part of the church. Since the groups are fluid, the church could move away into being in error, and then as another group gets it right and gains influence, move back towards being scriptural.

So, you can drop the false dichotomy.

But anyway, when I talk about infallibility, I am of course talking about infallibility in matters of official doctrine and preservation of the faith.

Why does The Athanasian Creed say # And shall give account for their own works.
# And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

Seems to me that this states a works based salvation. Definately a failure in the preservation of the faith.

You claimed that the deceivers were still part of the local church. I claimed that they had probably already been cast out. You then claimed that they were still dealing with the deception - implication being that this proved that the deception came from within the Church. Now that you have admitted that deception can come from outside the Church, you have undermined your argument that the deceivers must still have been part of the Church.

Not at all. The context suggests that they were in the church with John, and went out from them, and were claiming still to be from the apostles. If they were making this claim, they would have been claiming to be a part of the church!

As I said, it is likely that the deceivers had already been cast out.

I disagree. Otherwise John wouldn't have had to tell them that they went out from them, but weren't a part of them.

Who cares about scribal errors? Do they change the faith of the Church at all? I do not know of a single scribal error that affects the faith of the Church.

Oh, really? The apparant addition of the last part of Mark 16 is significant, as are several other errors that are common to certain groups of texts, by scribes with a certain theological agenda.

I guess that means that you're wrong then, because I what I am telling you has come from the Holy Spirit. You, on the other hand, have clearly distorted the Spirit's call.

More unsupported assertion.

Do you now see the problem in your position? People on both sides of any debate claim to be guided by the Spirit when they make their decision. That's why you can't take any one person's opinion by themselves - you need a consensus.

Why?

The Church (that is, the Orthodox Church) is the infallible source of teaching today. Just as it was in the beginning when it assumed the authority to let Gentiles into the Church, when it assumed the authority at the Council of Jerusalem to permit Christians to no longer observe the ritual purity laws (Acts 15), as it was when the Gnostic heretics were being fought, as it was when the canon of Scripture was being formed.and will be forevermore.

Who asserted that gentiles should be allowed into the church? Seems to me that God appeared to Peter in a dream to communicate that. Furthermore, Jesus himself told them that they would go into all the earth. And even the OT declares that God will call them His people who are not His people, which clearly shows that gentiles were to become a part of God's people.

No, the church did not make that decision. God declared it long before they even considered it.

Where is your name in the Bible? I don't see anywhere in the Bible where it says that God would send you personally the Holy Spirit. You were never a member of the audiences being addressed. That Jesus/Paul/whoever meant to include you personally among those whom they were addressing is an assumption on your part - one supported by tradition of interpretation, and not by the text itself.

Where is "Orthodox Church" in the bible? I don't see it anywhere in the bible where it says that God would send the Orthodox Church the Holy Spirit. Nowhere does Jesus send the Holy Spirit to the church, but to individuals. That Jesus/Paul/whoever meant to include only the Orthodox church among those whom they were addressing is an assumption on your part - on supported by tradition of interpretation, and not by the text itself.

Begged question. If you as an individual have not interpreted the Bible correctly, then you cannot be sure if you do have the Holy Spirit, can you?

My assurance of having the Holy Spirit is not based upon my abiliy to interpret scripture.

The Holy Spirit always works through a medium because He is invisible and incorporeal. You say that the medium is the individual, I say it is the Church as a whole.

I say that there is no medium. I say that the Holy Spirit teaches individually and directly.

In answer to your attempt to trick me: of course, Christ is the mediator between God and man. But Christ, being truly human, is also a part of the Church - its head, the high priest of the order of Melchizidek. It is by beming members of the body of Christ (ie, the Church), that we receive His Spirit.

Individually.

I think that they strongly distort the Spirit's message with their own teaching. That is my point. That's what happens when you rely on "internal witness" and claim that you don't need external validation.

Actually, John is the one who said that, not me. That's the very point of 1 John 2:27.

Yes, I do think that he would have preserved it. And I think here that you've shot yourself in the foot, because the fact is that He has preserved it. The bulk of Christians today still have that Church structure: 80m Anglicans, 1b Catholics, 250m Orthodox - even the Lutherans and many Protestant denoms have the same heirarchical structures in place (even if they use different names for the various positions - eg, we have "pastor", "district", and "district president" instead of "priest", "diocese" and "bishop", but the positions are the same).

And they're all in error. There is no basis for human authority in the church beyond the local body.

As if teaching was not an authorititative position? Isn't a teacher a person who oversees the learning of his pupils?

Not necessarily.

Also, what need would they have for Paul and Barnabas to teach them, if (as you say) it was the Holy Spirit that taught them? Answer: because it was through Paul and Barnabas that the Holy Spirit did His teaching.

They needed leadership and guidance. They were a church out of balance with a need for wise leaders.

Yes. And? Do you think that they were infallible when they decided upon the canon of Scripture?

No. They just got that one right.

You mean, we have to accept the tradition of the canon of Scripture as it was handed down to us? Why do you ignore all the other traditions then, or think yourself in a position to be able to determine which traditions apply and which do not?

Since the traditions are fallible, it would seem wise to consider each carefully.

As for the Holy Spirit confirming the Word of God to us... well, the Mormons claim essentially the same thing of the BoM. If you wish your faith to be as blind as that of the Mormons... well...

So?

Not exactly. I'm just asking you to hold yourself to the same standard that you are trying to hold me to. Why is it fair for you to insist that every proposition I put forward must have a Biblical basis, when your foundational proposition (ie, that all propositions must have a Biblical basis) itself does not have a Biblical basis? You're asking me to play by a more stringent set of rules than you are allowing yourself to play by - stacking the deck.

Then prove the infallibility of the church. Not through assertion, but through evidence.

Yes, we should just listen to what the Church (Orthodox Church, that is) says now. That is the source of all doctrine. And among the things that they are saying is that the Bible is the word of God. And that is why we bother having it - because the Church tells us that we should. If you through out the Bible, then you would not be listening to what the Church says now.

The Orthodox church teaches that we receive eternal life as a result of good works. That just ain't biblical.

However, you are including yourself in the Church when you say "we can add...". But you are not. Therefore, you don't have voting rights in determining what is infallible.

Neither do you.

Rubbish! What a very modern, Westo-centric and arrogant attitude to have. Are you saying that illiterate societies cannot have coherent religion? Which text did Abraham and Noah base their religions on, centuries before the Torah was written?

Did they even have a religion? Or was it simply a relationship with God?

Obviously there was a very strong oral tradition which acted as their source in that time.

Perhaps you claim that these righteous and Godly men did not have a coherent religion? What about the fact that most of the Church, especially in the early part of its history, was illiterate? Was their religion incoherent until the Bible was finalised three centuries later? No, it is not necessary to have a text in order to have a coherent religion.

They did have an assembled Old Testement from which to read (or someone to read, anyway.)

You are, however, correct in saying that every coherent religion needs to have a standard of truth by which all truth could be measured. What was this standard of truth for the apostles?

The Old Testement.

Christ Himself, of course. When He returned to be with the Father, how was this truth preserved? The apostles, whom Christ Himself hand-picked, preserved it between them, and taught others in the same way. And in this way, the Church was formed - with Christ Himself being the founding member.

Actually, it was preserved through those writers whom God chose to be carried along by the Holy Spirit.

What did Paul say was the standard of truth? In an earlier post, when talking about where the Bible tells you what the source of all Christian doctrine was, you referred to 1 Timothy 3:16 when in fact you meant 2 Timothy 3:16. I think this was a Freudian slip (or perhaps the Holy Spirit working through you, without you realising? :smile:). When I looked up 1 Tim 3:16, I read the whole chapter preceding it. This is where Paul talks about the structure of the Church - with deacons and bishops. Finally, he explains why he is giving all these instructions to do with the structure of the Church:

14Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

There you have it - straight from the Bible itself. You claim that every coherent religion must have a pillar and ground of truth, against which everything must be tested. And the Bible tells you that that pillar is the Church itself. If if you axiomatically (and inconsistently) take it that all doctrine must come from the Bible, my position automatically follows.

Not quite. Paul had instructed Timothy to select elders and deacons to rule the local church. But nothing more.

Seems to me that this destroys the idea that there is human authoritative church structure above the local church.

Michael

[Jude3b]

"He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." (John 8:47)

"And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylone the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities." (Rev. 18:1-5).

This verse Rev. 18:1-5, is a message from God. God is warning his people of a place and condition which is called Babylon and is fallen (spiritually), is become a habitation of devils, and from which we must flee in order to save our souls.

What constitutes Babylon? Popery, as found in the Roman Catholic Church today, dates back to A.D. 270. Years preceding this date it was developing, but did not exert much power until 270 A.D. and was fully developed in 530 A.D. and ruled, along with its political power, the entire civilized world from approximately A.D. 530 unto A.D. 1530, a period of one thousand years. This period is known in history as the dark ages.

The Roman Catholic church does not date back to the days of Jesus. It is not the church Jesus built.

In 1516 a venerable old priest (Martin Luther) of the Roman church began to denounce and expose publicly the evil practices of his church, which finally resulted in his ejection from the church and the bursting forth of the 16th Century Reformation. The result was that entire nations turned from the Roman Catholic religion throwing off her yoke of bondage and embraced true Christianity insofar as God had revealed it at that time. Rome's power was broken by the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The preaching of the Gospel which brought about the loss of Catholicism's universal dominion also brought about the rising of another system, the Protestant system of religion. Great strides of progress were made during the days of the reformation, until disagreement arose among the reformers.
They could not agree on certain points of doctrine; so division came among them. The Calvinist would have no dealings with the Lutherans for example.

Thus we see the true spirit that animates Protestantism, and that spirit has not changed unto this day. Her foundation is one of division, which God strongly condemns. She is built upon the various creeds which have been written since A.D. 1530.

The great systems of religion, namely Romanism and Protestantism and the matter of creed writing, separates one body from another and is contrary to the great plan of God to save the world. He wills that his people be one that the world might believe.

The great systems of religion - Romanism and Protestantism comprise "Mystery Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth." The call of God to his pople who are scattered in these various places is to "COME OUT OF HER, MY PEOPLE, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."

The Bible teaches us, "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling: one LORD, ONE FAITH, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (Ephesians 4:4-6). The great plan of God is that all his children be one in him that the world might believe. "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into ONE body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." (I Cor. 12:13). This one body is the true church of God, the body of Christ which was purchased by the blood of Jesus Christ on the cross. Read Acts 20:28 where Paul states this great truth.

God is calling us (Christians) His People to "Come out" of all the babel of confusion in the religious world and take our stand upon the Word of God with the Spirit of God as our Indwelling Comforter and Guide. If we allow the Holy Spirit to lead us, we would never join the man-made sects and denominations called churches. They are man-made; man goverened; and God is calling His people out of them. Let us flee from the dark-some courts of the babel of confusion existing in the religious world and take our stand on the pure Word of God! Amen and Amen!

[Jezz]

What constitutes Babylon? Popery, as found in the Roman Catholic Church today, dates back to A.D. 270. Years preceding this date it was developing, but did not exert much power until 270 A.D. and was fully developed in 530 A.D. and ruled, along with its political power, the entire civilized world from approximately A.D. 530 unto A.D. 1530, a period of one thousand years. This period is known in history as the dark ages.
This is absolute rubbish. The Roman Church had nowhere near the power you are claiming that it did, and certainly not over the entire empire. For starters, the Empire was divided between East and West for much of that time (it became divided after Constantine). The seat of the capital was moved to Constantinople in the East, and the eastern Emperor ruled from there. The popes had no control over the Eastern Emperor at all. They didn't really have any control over the other patriarchs in the East either. And also, in 270 Christianity was still an illegal religion, and so no church anywhere (including Rome) was exerting any power at all.

The Roman Catholic church does not date back to the days of Jesus. It is not the church Jesus built.
No, it doesn't date back to the days of Jesus (no church does - the church building began at Pentecost). But the church in Rome has been there since the first century, and was founded in the lifetimes of the apostles (Paul did write a letter to them, after all). Of course, the RCC has since apostasised from the true Church by changing its doctrine, but to claim that it doesn't date back to the days of the first century is to deny basic history.

In 1516 a venerable old priest (Martin Luther) of the Roman church
More rubbish. Luther was born in 1483, which made him 33 in 1516 - hardly what you would call old.

Thus we see the true spirit that animates Protestantism, and that spirit has not changed unto this day. Her foundation is one of division, which God strongly condemns.
And what of your foundation? You run around claiming that every other denomination in Christendom is corrupt so that you're just going to start your own... that's pretty divisive, isn't it?

The great systems of religion, namely Romanism and Protestantism and the matter of creed writing, separates one body from another and is contrary to the great plan of God to save the world. He wills that his people be one that the world might believe.
Well, you've completely neglected the Orthodox... as far as they are concerned, the body of Christ has never been separated... they are the original, non-denominational body of Christ.

[Amazing Rando]

More rubbish. Luther was born in 1483, which made him 33 in 1516 - hardly what you would call old.


But Jezz! If Luther was age 33 when he changed Christianity, and Jesus was 33 when his resurrection changed history, surely there much be some correlation! Can't you see it? The age of 33 unites Jesus and Luther in a very special way, proving that Luther was the second coming of Jesus!(and that Lutheranism is the One True Faith!) :eek:

In case you can't tell, I'm just kidding buddy!

[Jezz]

Well, until you can prove that there is another authoritative source [other than the Bible], I have no other standard by which to judge.

However, your assertion [that the Church is authoritative] does not make it authoritative.
Translation: You merely assert that the Bible is authoritative. Then you insist that my mere assertion that the Church is authoritative does not make it authoritative.

Now, I agree with your second statement (and I intend on offering proof that the Church is authoritative, rather than merely asserting). But can't you see the double standard here?

And that, too, you'll have to prove somehow.
It is easy to prove. Look at the history of all the churches, and see which ones have been there from the very beginning. Like the churches in Antioch and Jerusalem and Alexandria and Rome - all founded in first century, all still in existence today. In the first century, they were the Church. If you want to prove that they no longer are, then the burden lies on you to do so (with the exception of the Roman Church, which I will grant has apostasised).

I have a couple of issues with Orthodox creeds, but I suppose we'll have to get to that later.
When you find a fault with the Orthodox doctrine, you are really finding a fault in your own understanding...

Or that the Church got it right that time, in spite of being fallible. Fallibility doesn't mean one is always wrong.
So who decides when they got it right and when they got it wrong then? You?

So, the Orthodox Church doesn't think the canon is necessarily closed, since any member of the Church can add to it?
No, the Orthodox Church thinks the canon is closed, because the Orthodox Church declared it to be closed. And yes, any member of the Church could have theoretically added to it (prior to the closure of the canon), but their additions would not become official Church additions until they are accepted by the wider Church.

Subjuctive implies contingincy, not future.
Yes, subjunctive implies contingency. But the contigent event - does it occur in the past or in the future, relative to the event upon which it is contingent?

They may have been past events. You didn't tell us whether you earned that wage, nor did you tell us if you've been to that restaurant. You just told us your intent as of that moment.
True. But the point is, you originally asserted that because the passage was subjunctive, the santification of the Church must be an ongoing event, and if Paul meant to say that it had already happened he'd have used indicative. As my example shows, this is false. Subjunctive can be used of events that are already completed.

Recall what the contingent event was that Paul was saying would lead to the sanctification etc of the Church: he says that Christ gave Himself up for her (v25). Now, if the "giving up" has already happened (and surely you recognise that this is talking about the crucifixion), doesn't that imply that the contingent event (ie, sanctification of the Church) has already happened too?

The answer is yes. 1 Corinthians 3:17, explicitly states that this is the case: it says "God's temple is sacred" - meaning that it has been sanctified. (sacred = hagios, sanctify = hagiazo)

Now, since the church is supposed to be holy and blameless (Eph 1:4), you need to show that every member of the church (or is it Church?) is blameless. Are you claiming that every member of the church (or Church) no longer sins?
No. I'm claiming that the Church as a whole does not err - it does not introduce false doctrine. Christ had a body that was imperfect and bore the blemishes that result from life and aging. Yet Christ was still blameless. In the same way, the Church (the body of Christ) is blameless, despite some of its members being blemished.

The bride, yes. However, the bride has not yet been presented to the groom. Remember that Christ went away to prepare a place for us, just as a Jewish husband will go away to prepare a place for his bride before he returns to the marriage ceremony and feast. Christ has not returned, and neither are we now sanctified.
You're completely ignoring the preceding context of Ephesians 5:25-27:

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Paul draws the parallel between Christ being the head of the Church (a relationship which he describes using present indicative, indicating present reality) and the husband as the head of the wife. Paul's advice and analogy is to married couples - not betrothed couples. Your claim that Christ has not yet been presented to his bride runs counter to the assertion the the previous passages, which assert that Christ is already the head of the Church.

You might want to deal with "blameless", too.
Done.

You're making the error of the false dichotomy. There will be those in the church who are in error, and those who are not. Those in each group will be fluid as you move from issue to issue and as you move over time. So, it's not that the church must continuously move in one direction or the other, but the direction of the church is more or less determined by which individuals and groups hold sway in a given part of the church. Since the groups are fluid, the church could move away into being in error, and then as another group gets it right and gains influence, move back towards being scriptural.
No doctrine of the Church reaches the status of "official Church doctrine" until it is accepted by a significant majority. At which point, those who disagree cease to be part of the Church. The Nicene Creed and the Arian controversy is an example of this in action. The Nicene Creed was decided upon by a significant majority - up to 318 bishops present, and only 2 dissented. From that point on, Arians were excommunicated and no longer considered part of the Church. In this way, those who are in error in the Church are always a minority, and the Church itself remains error-free.

Why does The Athanasian Creed say

# And shall give account for their own works.
# And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

Probably for the same reason that Paul says:

7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.

See, the thing is that the Biblical meaning of "faith" implies works. The greater your works, the greater your faith, and vice-versa.

Seems to me that this states a works based salvation. Definately a failure in the preservation of the faith.
Definitely a failure in your understanding of the faith. :teeth:

Not at all. The context suggests that they were in the church with John, and went out from them, and were claiming still to be from the apostles. If they were making this claim, they would have been claiming to be a part of the church!

I disagree. Otherwise John wouldn't have had to tell them that they went out from them, but weren't a part of them.
Right, but now you're making a different argument. Your original argument was that the mere fact that deception existed implied that the deceivers were still part of the church. Now you seem to recognise that this argument is invalid. Correct?

Anyway, on with your new argument: Why did John say that "they would have remained with us" - implying that they didn't remain - if the deceivers had remained with them?

Oh, really? The apparant addition of the last part of Mark 16 is significant, as are several other errors that are common to certain groups of texts, by scribes with a certain theological agenda.
None of that is significant for matters of faith at all. How does the ending of Mark change the doctrine of the Orthodox Church? I mean, for one thing the Syriac Orthodox churches don't even have it in their Bible (the Peshitta), but the Greek churches do (the Textus Receptus) - yet they have the same faith.

I guess that means that you're wrong then, because I what I am telling you has come from the Holy Spirit. You, on the other hand, have clearly distorted the Spirit's call.

More unsupported assertion.
That's the whole point, Muz. To claim "I'm right because I have the guidance of the Holy Spirit" is an unsupported assertion. We both claim to have the Holy Spirit, yet we differ in our interpretation. How do we determine which of us is correct, without looking to the broader consensus?

Who asserted that gentiles should be allowed into the church? Seems to me that God appeared to Peter in a dream to communicate that. Furthermore, Jesus himself told them that they would go into all the earth. And even the OT declares that God will call them His people who are not His people, which clearly shows that gentiles were to become a part of God's people.

No, the church did not make that decision. God declared it long before they even considered it.
Point taken, but you completely ignored the matter of circumcision and the ritual laws. It was the Church who decided at the Council of Jerusalem that gentile converts did not have to observed the ritual laws, or be circumcised. This decision was considered to be a decision of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements...) by virtue of the fact that the Church made it. They did not appeal to Scripture to make this decision, nor did they receive a vision from God - they simply held that the Holy Spirit had spoken because the Church as a whole had spoken.

Where is "Orthodox Church" in the bible?
Everywhere it talks about the Church. The Church first adopted the additional appellation of "Orthodox" in order to distinguish themselves (who adhered to Nicene Orthodoxy) from the Arians.

I don't see it anywhere in the bible where it says that God would send the Orthodox Church the Holy Spirit. Nowhere does Jesus send the Holy Spirit to the church, but to individuals.
This is simply incorrect. 99% of the time in the NT, they speak of the Holy Spirit being sent to individuals by virtue of their membership in the Church. It is not isolated individuals who receive the Spirit. Moreover there are
1. The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15, discussed above).
2. 1 Timothy 3:15 (which I will address more below).
3. From "The New Testament World", by Bruce J. Malina, p177:

For Christians of the Pauline tradition, the Jerusalem Temple was no longer a specific, designated area of sacred space. Rather, the Temple, or more specifically, the sanctuary itself, was the gathering of Christians who formed the body of Christ filled with the Spirit. They together were the "temple of the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 6:19; see 1 Cor 3:16-17) or "the temple of the living God" (2 Cor. 6:16). Furthermore, it is always the holy group, never the individual, that is the Temple of God and the body of Christ. After all, we are dealing with group-oriented, group-controlled dyadic personalities.
In other words, Malina (a highly respected NT scholar) agrees with my interpretation. You should read the entire chapter of that book if you get a chance (heck, read the entire book).

Let's look at the verses that Malina refers to:

Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?

"you" in all of these cases is the plural you - ie, Paul is addressing a group. Yet, "body" and "temple" are singular. This means that although Paul is addressing all of them, there is only one temple of the Holy Spirit between them - that is, the Church.

16Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? 17If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple.

Again, "you" is plural and "temple" is singular. There is only one temple that the Spirit resides in, and it is a group of people - the Church, the body of Christ.

For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."

Again in the plural (1st person instead of 2nd person, but still plural). But "temple" is in the singular. Paul does not say "For we are temples of the living God." Nor does he say "For each of us is a temple of the living God."

It is pretty clear that the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit does not come individually apart from the Church.

That Jesus/Paul/whoever meant to include only the Orthodox church among those whom they were addressing is an assumption on your part - on supported by tradition of interpretation, and not by the text itself.
On the contrary - that Jesus/Paul/whoever meant to include every individual (whether part of the Church or not) among those whom they were addressing is an assumption on your part - one supported by tradition of interpretation, and not by the text itself. Your traditional interpretation is all the more unreliable by virtue of its recent construction. You will find no early Christians who support your interpretation.

My interpretation is not only supported by a tradition as old as the NT itself - it is also supported by historical analysis. It remains a historical fact (one that you have not disputed), that the documents of the NT were all written for members of the Church. In the 1 John example that you used, John uses the plural form of address - indicating that he was addressing a group - not people on an individual basis. He says "The Holy Spirit will guide y'all into all truth" - he does not say "The Holy Spirit will guide each of you into all truth". That is the difference between group address and individual address.

My assurance of having the Holy Spirit is not based upon my abiliy to interpret scripture.
What is it based on then? And if you know that you have the Holy Spirit without having to interpret Scripture, and the Spirit is what guides you into all truth, then why do you need the Scripture at all?

I say that there is no medium. I say that the Holy Spirit teaches individually and directly.
Then you claim that the individual is the medium. Depending on your answer to the previous question, you may also believe that Scripture is a medium of the Holy Spirit as well.

I already agreed that the Holy Spirit guides us directly. But we are also prone to misinterpreting the Spirit's guidance, which is why He also provides external guidance. That guidance comes in the form of fellow Christians - and together, they comprise the Church.

Actually, John is the one who said that, not me. That's the very point of 1 John 2:27.
No, John was addressing a specific audience, and he said that his audience didn't need any more external guidance. And he said that they didn't need any more external guidance because they'd already received the guidance that they needed from them at an earlier stage (v24a See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you.) The apostles did not just wander around annointing people and leaving the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth - they hung around and taught them (eg, Paul and Barnabas who went to Antioch to teach).

And they're all in error. There is no basis for human authority in the church beyond the local body.
So everyone's wrong but you? I wonder how it is that you managed to receive such an oversized helping of the Spirit's guidance, while the majority of the rest of Christendom got it so completely wrong... and from within only a generation or two of the apostles...

As if teaching was not an authorititative position? Isn't a teacher a person who oversees the learning of his pupils?

Not necessarily.
:shrug: What is the job of a teacher, if not to oversee the learning of his pupils???

They needed leadership and guidance. They were a church out of balance with a need for wise leaders.
I thought you said that churches didn't need external guidance - they just need the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth? Why did they need wise leaders if they each individually had the Holy Spirit to guide them individually into all truth, independently of the rest of the Church?

Since the traditions are fallible, it would seem wise to consider each carefully.
The traditions already have been considered carefully by generations of Christians. It is far more likely that there is a mistake in your understanding than there is in their doctrine. What makes you think that you by yourself have the knowledge necessary to determine what they got right and what they didn't?

So?
The point is, the Mormons get things wrong because they rely exclusively on the concept of internal witness. Your approach would also have us rely exclusively on internal witness... therefore, you are prone to getting things wrong, just as the Mormons do.

Then prove the infallibility of the church. Not through assertion, but through evidence.
Again with the double standard. See my opening paragraph.

The Orthodox church teaches that we receive eternal life as a result of good works. That just ain't biblical.
Sure it is. Addressed above.

However, you are including yourself in the Church when you say "we can add...". But you are not. Therefore, you don't have voting rights in determining what is infallible.

Neither do you.
Correct. That is why I'm not trying to claim that the Orthodox are wrong. I think it more likely that if I think they've got something wrong, it's because of a fault in my understanding. You, on the other hand, think that if there is a discrepancy between what you believe and what the Church believe, then it is the Church who is wrong.

Did they even have a religion? Or was it simply a relationship with God?
What's the difference?

Anyway, you're no doubt aware that both offered sacrifices to God. What is that, if not religious activity?

Obviously there was a very strong oral tradition which acted as their source in that time.
So you admit that your statement: "Any coherant religion MUST have a text upon which it tests all truth." is false?

They did have an assembled Old Testement from which to read (or someone to read, anyway.)
But the OT is not the same Bible that we have, is it? If the Bible is so essential for Christianity, then how is it that Christianity could have existed when they had a completely different Bible?

You are, however, correct in saying that every coherent religion needs to have a standard of truth by which all truth could be measured. What was this standard of truth for the apostles?

The Old Testement.
Incorrect. The standard of truth for the apostles was Jesus Himself - His teaching. It is true that Jesus based His teaching on the OT, but He also interpreted it.

Actually, it was preserved through those writers whom God chose to be carried along by the Holy Spirit.
And how do we know that those writings are legitimate and not forgeries? Because the tradition tells us that they were legitimate!

Not quite. Paul had instructed Timothy to select elders and deacons to rule the local church. But nothing more.
Irrelevant. After giving instructions for Timothy's local church, Paul speaks more generally about the church of the living God - calling it the pillar and ground of all truth. The use of the definite article in the phrase "the church of the living God" implies that there is only one "church of the living God". Obviously, in this context Paul was not referring to Timothy's local church. He was referring to the body of Christ - the Church. It was the Church that was the pillar and ground of all truth, according to Paul.

Seems to me that this destroys the idea that there is human authoritative church structure above the local church.
It does no such thing. Note that Paul was not part of that local church - thus Timothy was following advice from outside his local church. The passage thus shows that authoritative hierarchies were already in place.

[romepunk]

Like the churches in Antioch and Jerusalem and Alexandria and Rome - all founded in first century, all still in existence today. In the first century, they were the Church. If you want to prove that they no longer are, then the burden lies on you to do so (with the exception of the Roman Church, which I will grant has apostasised).
Ouch. Can't we all just get along? I never did a lot of research into Orthodoxy when I converted to Catholicism, so may I ask, other than the filioque, where exactly have we gone off the rails?

[Jezz]

Ouch. Can't we all just get along?
Heh, sorry romepunk. If it's any consolation, I grew up Lutheran and am still a member of a Lutheran church... so if the RCC is apostate, and the Lutherans split from the RCC, then the Lutherans are apostate too...

Obviously, I mean no personal insult by it - I'm just expressing the facts as I see them. So yes - I see no reason why we can't get along. :smile:

I never did a lot of research into Orthodoxy when I converted to Catholicism, so may I ask, other than the filioque, where exactly have we gone off the rails?
I'd like to start a new thread on this because we seem to have a few knowledgable members of the RCC here, and there's much that they have in common with the Orthodox so there are a whole bunch of arguments we can skip. I don't have time right now, but in a few days I think I can get the new thread started.

For the time being, I'll just sum up the primary difference: papal supremacy. The RCC's view of the Church is feudal/monarchical - the pope is the supreme bishop and his word on matters of faith is authoritative, as though God Himself was speaking. The Orthodox view of the Church is collegiate - while various bishops have different honour accorded to them and more or less power in matters of ecclesiastical governance depending on their position, in matters of faith all bishops are equal. At an ecumenical council, every bishop's vote carries equal weight, and no individual bishop has the right to determine doctrine by themselves. The Orthodox consider the pope "the first bishop among equals" - not "the supreme bishop".

There are many other less important differences between the RCC and the Orthodox, but (IMO) they ultimately all derive from (what I see as) this abuse of power by the pope.

[Jude3b]

"And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylone the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities." (Rev. 18:1-5).

This verse Rev. 18:1-5, is a message from God. God is warning his people of a place and condition which is called Babylon and is fallen (spiritually), is become a habitation of devils, and from which we must flee in order to save our souls.

What constitutes Babylon? Popery, as found in the Roman Catholic Church today, dates back to A.D. 270. Years preceding this date it was developing, but did not exert much power until 270 A.D. and was fully developed in 530 A.D. and ruled, along with its political power, the entire civilized world from approximately A.D. 530 unto A.D. 1530, a period of one thousand years. This period is known in history as the dark ages.

The Roman Catholic church does not date back to the days of Jesus. It is not the church Jesus built.

In 1516 a venerable old priest (Martin Luther) of the Roman church began to denounce and expose publicly the evil practices of his church, which finally resulted in his ejection from the church and the bursting forth of the 16th Century Reformation. The result was that entire nations turned from the Roman Catholic religion throwing off her yoke of bondage and embraced true Christianity insofar as God had revealed it at that time. Rome's power was broken by the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The preaching of the Gospel which brought about the loss of Catholicism's universal dominion also brought about the rising of another system, the Protestant system of religion. Great strides of progress were made during the days of the reformation, until disagreement arose among the reformers.
They could not agree on certain points of doctrine; so division came among them. The Calvinist would have no dealings with the Lutherans for example.

Thus we see the true spirit that animates Protestantism, and that spirit has not changed unto this day. Her foundation is one of division, which God strongly condemns. She is built upon the various creeds which have been written since A.D. 1530.

The great systems of religion, namely Romanism and Protestantism and the matter of creed writing, separates one body from another and is contrary to the great plan of God to save the world. He wills that his people be one that the world might believe.

The great systems of religion - Romanism and Protestantism comprise "Mystery Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth." The call of God to his pople who are scattered in these various places is to "COME OUT OF HER, MY PEOPLE, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."

The Bible teaches us, "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling: one LORD, ONE FAITH, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (Ephesians 4:4-6). The great plan of God is that all his children be one in him that the world might believe. "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into ONE body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." (I Cor. 12:13). This one body is the true church of God, the body of Christ which was purchased by the blood of Jesus Christ on the cross. Read Acts 20:28 where Paul states this great truth.

God is calling us (Christians) His People to "Come out" of all the babel of confusion in the religious world and take our stand upon the Word of God with the Spirit of God as our Indwelling Comforter and Guide. If we allow the Holy Spirit to lead us, we would never join the man-made sects and denominations called churches. They are man-made; man goverened; and God is calling His people out of them. Let us flee from the dark-some courts of the babel of confusion existing in the religious world and take our stand on the pure Word of God! Amen and Amen!

Turn to Jesus today. He is waiting to set you free from your religions. Religion will not save you, it has no ability to save! Jesus is waiting to set you free. God bless you as you experience true salvation in Jesus Christ:
"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." (Proverbs 3:5-6)

[Jude3b]

Turn to Jesus today. He is waiting to set you free from your religions. Religion will not save you, it has no ability to save! Jesus is waiting to set you free. God bless you as you experience true salvation in Jesus Christ:
"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." (Proverbs 3:5-6)

"Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!" (Psalm 133:1)

[BibleMan]

Denominationalism has flooded the world with a multiplicity of varied and conflicting doctrines and all are labeled "Christian,"

My first question - Isn't division and sect making the greatest of sins?

My second question is - What right have men to establish a religious faith, differing in any respect from the New Testament?




Rejection of the Holy Spirit is the greatest of sins.

[Joe Gofish]

Denominationalism has flooded the world with a multiplicity of varied and conflicting doctrines and all are labeled "Christian,"

My first question - Isn't division and sect making the greatest of sins?

My second question is - What right have men to establish a religious faith, differing in any respect from the New Testament?

Christ started just one Church man has started over 26,000 denominations. All saying they are Bible alone and that is because of people like you that have their own private interpretation and do not know book from books.
Jude have you tryed to started your own denomination yet ? Your a little like Chas Russell and he started one ,remember ?