17 Feb 16
Originally posted by KellyJayi agree in part, however we can never be rid of sin according to your beliefs so the gap remains.
There isn't a gap between us and God, God bridged it for us through Jesus Christ. The only
gap is sin and when we think we rate being good enough for God on our efforts.
18 Feb 16
Originally posted by stellspalfieNot sure what you mean by this? If it is that we go our merry way avoiding God and
in what way is he a bridge? isnt he more of a coat hanger?
staying in sin without repentance and obedience your in error. It does mean that when we
do acknowledge our needs before God and our short comings we can come to God
because there is no other way before us. We cannot earn our own way into God's favor
though our own efforts, and those of us who think God will owe them because they do
certain things are trusting in their own efforts not Jesus to save them.
Originally posted by sonshipYour willingness to throw in the word hypocritical is noted.How is being boiled in oil death by natural causes?
I didn't say he was boiled to death. I merely said he was put into boiling oil.
The difficulty with what you've stated is that the version of Christianity we have is St Paul's.
This is rather hypocritical of you up front. Paul never referred to himself as "St ...[text shortened]... sus (not to be confused with the brother of John - James). But even he eventually came around.
All Protestant Churches split from the Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation. The Orthodox Churches split from Rome about 1,000 years ago. They are all Pauline. You threw in an insult for no reason other than my observation that all modern Churches are Pauline. Further discussion seems fruitless.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtJust some historical footnotes:
Your willingness to throw in the word hypocritical is noted.
All Protestant Churches split from the Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation. The Orthodox Churches split from Rome about 1,000 years ago. They are all Pauline. You threw in an insult for no reason other than my observation that all modern Churches are Pauline. Further discussion seems fruitless.
The “Great Schism” of 1054 saw the split between Rome and what is now generally known as the Eastern Orthodox Church(es). The issues were the supremacy of the Patriarch of Rome (the Pope) and the insistence by Rome on the addition of the filioque to the original Nicene Creed.
The Protestant Reformation was vis-à-vis Rome, and had little to do with Eastern Christianity. My experience is that most Protestants know little, if anything, of the longest-standing Christian churches—those of the East (either Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian; when I use “Orthodox” with a capital “O”, I mean the Chalcedonian churches: e.g., Greek and Russian Orthodox). Protestant churches (at least the “creedal” ones) have kept the filioque.
Sola Scriptura was pretty much the invention of Martin Luther. Despite his flaws, Luther was brilliant. But sola scriptura, which was aimed at the Roman Church tradition as it had evolved up till that time, I think was an error. It was the ekklesia (the church) that decided what texts would and would not be included in the scriptural corpus of the Bible. Luther, and most Protestants subsequently, removed the deutero-canonical books from the original Biblical canon—effectively establishing a new Biblical tradition.
The Eastern churches claim to be heirs of the apostolic and post-apostolic oral tradition—in which the oral explanation of the available scriptures was carried out (the archetype being the story of Phillip and the Ethiopian in Acts). Eventually, this tradition both decided the Biblical canon and its earliest interpretation (through disputation, to be sure). To ignore the views of the patristic tradition (e.g., Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria)—except for “western” fathers such as Augustin and Irenaeus—is, I think, an error that plagues “western Christianity” (whose proponents likely think they are the only Christianity) today.
To quote from (roughly, from memory) Jaroslav Pelikan (perhaps the pre-eminent historian of Church doctrine): If there was a Christian “orthodoxy” in the first century after Christ, it was a pluralistic orthodoxy—i.e., a common church in which such issues as the Trinity (or not) were considerably fluid and non-dogmatic.
(Pelikan’s opus runs, if I recall rightly, five volumes. I read through one and two pretty thoroughly some years ago. I read some of volume five. It’s a real slog. The text is one column on each page, and the extensive references are in the other.)
Over time, various “denominations” have become hardened in their dogma. It’s not just Protestant and Roman Catholic (with, again, the Orthodox mostly ignored, at least by the Protestants)—there are Protestant groups that denounce one another just as roundly (and sometimes viciously) as in any Protestant-Catholic disputes.
All of which is part of why I decline to call myself a “Christian”—preferring the adjective “Christic”, which is admittedly ambiguous. But, in this case, I think that ambiguity may be a sign of some humility—not claiming to know “The Truth™” so well as to become dogmatic. I might always be wrong. So might anyone else.
Originally posted by vistesdThanks, an interesting post. One nice feature of the Church of England, this may apply to other Anglican Communions but I've no experience, is that, as a first approximation, it has two poles; the Anglo-Catholics at one and almost Puritant at the other, with all sorts of shades in between. The high low church dichotomy mirrors the North/South divide in the UK to some extent. It's so used to operating as a compromise I think it finds it difficult to be especially dogmatic.
Just some historical footnotes:
The “Great Schism” of 1054 saw the split between Rome and what is now generally known as the Eastern Orthodox Church(es). The issues were the supremacy of the Patriarch of Rome (the Pope) and the insistence by Rome on the addition of the filioque to the original Nicene Creed.
The Protestant Reformation was vis-à- ...[text shortened]... know “The Truth™” so well as to become dogmatic. I might always be wrong. So might anyone else.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 326101
20 Feb 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI think it also reflects an east/west divide, in that East Anglia tends to be very low church, if not Puritan, with the south-west, at any rate, correspondingly higher. However, I find it unrecognisable from the CofE in which I grew up. I moved to Rome some thirty years ago, and am blissfully happy there.
Thanks, an interesting post. One nice feature of the Church of England, this may apply to other Anglican Communions but I've no experience, is that, as a first approximation, it has two poles; the Anglo-Catholics at one and almost Puritant at the other, with all sorts of shades in between. The high low church dichotomy mirrors the North/South divide in ...[text shortened]... 's so used to operating as a compromise I think it finds it difficult to be especially dogmatic.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
20 Feb 16
Originally posted by KellyJayyou guys hang your sins on him, he takes them for you while you go into the club. however they are still your sin regardless where they hang.
Not sure what you mean by this? If it is that we go our merry way avoiding God and
staying in sin without repentance and obedience your in error. It does mean that when we
do acknowledge our needs before God and our short comings we can come to God
because there is no other way before us. We cannot earn our own way into God's favor
though our own effort ...[text shortened]... e them because they do
certain things are trusting in their own efforts not Jesus to save them.