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

[tizzidale]

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

[tizzidale]

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

[tizzidale]

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

[tizzidale]

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

[tizzidale]

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.

[tizzidale]

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

[tizzidale]

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

[tizzidale]

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

[tizzidale]

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

[tizzidale]

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?

[tizzidale]

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?

[tizzidale]

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

[tizzidale]

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

[tizzidale]

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

[tizzidale]

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

[tizzidale]

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

[tizzidale]

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

[tizzidale]

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