Works first then 'Abode'

Originally posted by jaywill

I like this formulation but wonder -- doesn't it imply a fourth entity, the "checkers?"

Who are they? In your analogy, it is "we."

The people of God. His saints.

I won't go down penguin's path on this.

The issue you raise is central to the history of Christianity, but may not be central to Christianity in other, important ways.

We have with the Bible the living Holy Spirit and the consecrated servants of God, the apostles and prophets. And the three matters are used to check on each other.

Who are the "checkers?"

The people of God. His saints.

We now have 4 entities; not to mention the posibility of overlap.

I think a reasonably intelligent and informed person can see the issue raised here. It is one that was raised in the Great Schism, the Western Schism, the Reformation, and in fact, in the disputes over Biblical inerrancy between the Church and early science. Who adjudicates such disputes inerrantly?

Other factors such as the invention of the printing press and translation of the Bible into local tongues also played a role.

Ultimately, the individual has to decide if the authorities are reliable. However, if this issue is not a significant one for the faithful, due to their faith and hope, I fail to see how skeptical questioning can change that. Nor should it, necessarily.

Originally posted by JS357
I won't go down penguin's path on this.

The issue you raise is central to the history of Christianity, but may not be central to Christianity in other, important ways.

We have with the Bible the living Holy Spirit and the consecrated servants of God, the apostles and prophets. And the three matters are used to check on each other.

Who d hope, I fail to see how skeptical questioning can change that. Nor should it, necessarily.

I won't go down penguin's path on this.

The issue you raise is central to the history of Christianity, but may not be central to Christianity in other, important ways.

Without re-reading all the exchanges, I will attempt to keep the thread of discussion relevant. Bear with me.

I think I was talking about things effecting the authenticity of God's guidance and speaking. ie. How do we know, that we know, etc. ?

I think I was saying the church has not just the Scriptures. The living God is behind the God inspired Scriptures, guiding, helping. And the apostles, prophets, and "joints of supply" in the Body of Christ are on earth to help.

me:

We have with the Bible the living Holy Spirit and the consecrated servants of God, the apostles and prophets. And the three matters are used to check on each other.


Who are the "checkers?"

Well, the term "checkers" I did not use. If you mean that I should be able to identify all those who have an official "CHECKER" designation as an official ecclesiastical position, I won't do that.

Many things may be said to be of "the Holy Spirit". Whose to say that my picking up poisioness snakes between my teeth is not of "the Holy Spirit" ?

A lot of nonsensical things can be attributed to the Bible and to the Spirit of God. That will always be the case. And anyone can claim to a "prophet" or spokesmen for God telling the world what "Thus Saith the Lord". This will always be a problem.

But with these three matters working together - the Bible, the Holy Spirit, and the sent ones of God ( servants really consecrated to God ) with time the truer situation eventually is manifested.

I do not say this is always easy. I do not say this is always quick.
I would not say it is always without some residue of possible shortcoming or error.

I do say that through the years, eventually the truth comes up to the top. God, I believe, has the last word.

me:

The people of God. His saints.

We now have 4 entities; not to mention the posibility of overlap.

I don't want you to make this too complicated. There of course is some overlap because the apostles and prophets are part of the people of God.

Now in Ephesians Paul spoke of some people given as "gift to men". These "gifts to men" (Eph. 4:8) are servants of God. These people are of course constituents of the whole body of believers on the earth.

Paul writes, concerning these "gifts" - "And He Himself gave some apostles and some as prophets and some as evangelists and some as shepherds and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints unto the work of ministry, unto the building up of the Body of Christ."

The gifts are people who are themselves constituents of the Body of Christ. So it is really not a fourth group altogether. But overlap is involved as you suggest.

Latter in the passages Paul discribes them, I believe, as "joints[s] of the rich supply" (v.16)

The Body has many members. But the Body has gifted ones who themselves are "gifts to men" as joints the with "the rich supply" of grace and the Holy Spirit, aiding in the knitting together of the rest of the Body.

I do not believe that we should look to official positions for these joints of the rich supply. I believe that instead of card carrying "checkers" in that sense, it is their FUNCTION in the divine life which assists the saints on earth.

These servants may or may not have any official title or position. What is important is that the rich supply of life and truth flows through them to assist the saints in the church along the way of truth.

So when you ask "Well then, Who are the checkers ?" I don't believe it is as easy as that. That is that we may check a person's title to see if they have an bonifide "CHECKER" designation in some official way. I don't believe there is a hierarchy by which officially designated "CHECKERS" may be consulted with.

I don't think the matter is that easy. However, I think the Bible, the Holy Spirit, and the men and women given by the ascended Christ as GIFTS to men, work together to bring God's people into the truth.

I do not believe that any person who we might admit functioned as a checking one possesses some life long official organizational position as such necessarily. That person's spiritual condition may be good at one time and reliable and at other times low, not too good, and not too reliable.

Peter was certainly a spiritual authority. But he also lapsed into weakness. He had to be adjusted and even rebuked publically by a younger Christian worker - Paul.

Therefore, while I certainly regard the Apostle Peter as one who aided the saints to stay in the truth, it does not mean his position as such was permanant and official in some life long way. He was not the first pope. And there is no automatic and official continuation of authority from him in a human organizational way.

His "checking" function, if you will, was dependent upon the health of his spiritual condition. When he was strong in the Lord he was an authority. When he was weak in the Lord, his leadership had to be rebuked by another who WAS in a healthier capacity at the time - the younger Paul.

If you are implying a Catholic style official succession of checking authority, you'll find me not going along with that concept.

I think a reasonably intelligent and informed person can see the issue raised here. It is one that was raised in the Great Schism, the Western Schism, the Reformation, and in fact, in the disputes over Biblical inerrancy between the Church and early science. Who adjudicates such disputes inerrantly?

Let me think on this for a time. This post will not be a book to engage such a weighty issue. This is just a post.

I'll think on how I can respond concisely. And getting beat up by a seasoned Roman Catholic apologist (which I suspect you might be) is harder than dealing with a career Atheist. LOL.

Other factors such as the invention of the printing press and translation of the Bible into local tongues also played a role.

Ultimately, the individual has to decide if the authorities are reliable. However, if this issue is not a significant one for the faithful, due to their faith and hope, I fail to see how skeptical questioning can change that. Nor should it, necessarily.

I'll continue latter. All points I see you raise I consider valid.
Of course we all have to trust SOMEONE eventually.

It is not until the Judgement Seat of Christ that ALL things will be examined by Christ Himself. Each one will receivce his or her commendation from God.

In spite of this, I don't think Chistians can completely excuse themselves to complete relativity and ignorance. But that SOME issues may not be clear to us until the day we stand before Christ, I will not argue against.

Still we have an ADAQUATE means of guidance into the truth for daily living and for congregating together for His plan.

Continue latter.

Originally posted by jaywill

I won't go down penguin's path on this.

The issue you raise is central to the history of Christianity, but may not be central to Christianity in other, important ways.

Without re-reading all the exchanges, I will attempt to keep the thread of discussion relevant. Bear with me.

I think I was talking about things effecting the au ...[text shortened]... gether for His plan.

Continue latter.

I'll think on how I can respond concisely. And getting beat up by a seasoned Roman Catholic apologist (which I suspect you might be) is harder than dealing with a career Atheist. LOL.

I look forward to your further comments.

It isn't that I am a proponent of Apostolic succession. I received some training in apologetics. There do appear to be ways to interpret scripture in support of Apostolic succession; but there is a weird catch-22 involved in doing this. The catch is, if the members of the Apostolic succession are the designated authorities for Bible interpretation, then who am I to judge that there are ways to interpret scripture as being in, or not being in, support of Apostolic succession? It's their job.

Still we have an ADAQUATE means of guidance into the truth for daily living and for congregating together for His plan.

This is what I mean when I say, "...if this issue is not a significant one for the faithful, due to their faith and hope, I fail to see how skeptical questioning can change that. Nor should it, necessarily."

And yet it is strange to see Christians assail one another on the adequacy of one anothers' guidance. I tend to think that if God leaves something so unclear, it must not be very important. As an example of God (were God to exist) making something clear, I point to the law of gravity and the fragility of the human body; when the latter is subjected to the former.

Originally posted by JS357

I'll think on how I can respond concisely. And getting beat up by a seasoned Roman Catholic apologist (which I suspect you might be) is harder than dealing with a career Atheist. LOL.

I look forward to your further comments.

It isn't that I am a proponent of Apostolic succession. I received some training in apologetics. There do appear t f gravity and the fragility of the human body; when the latter is subjected to the former.

And yet it is strange to see Christians assail one another on the adequacy of one anothers' guidance. I tend to think that if God leaves something so unclear, it must not be very important. As an example of God (were God to exist) making something clear, I point to the law of gravity and the fragility of the human body; when the latter is subjected to the former.

I think we have to give room for the importance of something else besides doctrinal clarity. We may have a hope "Well if everyone UNDERSTANDS the doctrine THEN God's people will have no difficulties."

Now, when God was atop of Mt. Sinai for 40 days it was very dramatic. Obviosly all seemed "clearly" to intellectually grasp that God Almighty was in close proximity there in thunder, devouring fire, lightening, and an awesome supernatural spectacle.

But this did not stop the Israelites from getting tired and making for themselves a golden calf. There "clarity" didn't help them not to pressure Aaron to help with the creation of that idol and preparing to RETURN to Egypt.

You see? This one reason why I find it hard to so easily dismiss the Bible stories. This sounds like me. This sounds like my neighbors. This sounds like people I know.

God Almighty is there on top of the mountain for weeks. Eventually, people get bored with that, unbelieving with that, regardless of how doctrinally astute they were. And they rebell to substitute God with a abominable golden calf and prepare to go BACK and reverse the fortune of the Exodus.

So when we say "If everyone just clearly UNDERSTOOD the doctrines and there were no disputes over interpretation, well then, why the church would be perfect."

Don't we have to realize that someting other than clear headed mental assent with Scipture is at play here ?

Something in the heart of man can be wrong, even when he has a clear understanding of spiritual truths, doctrinal precepts, interpretations of passages.

I am sure the Jews at the foot of the mountain of Sinai clearly understood. Something was missing in the hearts of too many of them in spite of this mental agreement.

The Good Shepard knows how to take care of His own, the Holy Spirit was
sent to teach us and lead us. I think if anyone who is looking for a place or
a group is missing the point.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The Good Shepard knows how to take care of His own, the Holy Spirit was
sent to teach us and lead us. I think if anyone who is looking for a place or
a group is missing the point.
Kelly

I think there is something good in your view. But I don't think looking for the one flock is wrong. The good shepherd says that there will be one flock. So the folds are temporary. The flock and the pasture is something corporate.

I think you are right if you mean one should seek to touch the Head of the Body. For each member is directly and not indirectly connected to the Head of the Body.

But if we take that only vertically will every blessing come to us then we will be endlessly individualistic.

A balance maybe ?

Originally posted by jaywill
I think there is something good in your view. But I don't think looking for the one flock is wrong. The good shepherd says that there will be one flock. So the folds are temporary. The flock and the pasture is something corporate.

I think you are right if you mean one should seek to touch the Head of the Body. For each member is directly and not indirec ...[text shortened]... ll every blessing come to us then we will be endlessly individualistic.

A balance maybe ?

We are about to move across country, there isn't a "church" I feel we must join.
We will attend and pray about each church we attend till we find the one we
think is the right one. I think we are on the same page, for me as long as you
are connected to the head the body takes care of itself. 🙂
Kelly

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote] And yet it is strange to see Christians assail one another on the adequacy of one anothers' guidance. I tend to think that if God leaves something so unclear, it must not be very important. As an example of God (were God to exist) making something clear, I point to the law of gravity and the fragility of the human body; when the latter is subjected t ...[text shortened]... ing was missing in the hearts of too many of them in spite of this mental agreement.

Something in the heart of man can be wrong, even when he has a clear understanding of spiritual truths, doctrinal precepts, interpretations of passages.

Earlier:

We do not have only the Scripture alone. We also have the Holy Spirit and the apostles and prophets.

In each age, I believe, the three work together to shine light upon what needs to be emphasized for God's move on the earth.

We went into the idea of who is qualified to be the third leg of this stool, or to access how well the three are doing (the "checkers." ) We identified a split on this, between those who accept the Apostolic succession, and those who don't.

We now speak of there being something wrong with the recipients, that hinders their receptiveness to what the light shines upon. The example being, the Biblical account of God on Sinai.

The example you give is not how well the word of scriptures/Spirit/apostles/prophets on the incident have been received, it is how well the actual incident (God on Sinai) was received.

We must assume God knows how much "oomph" to put into both the incidents, and the followup recounting of the incident, to shine sufficient light.

Apparently the amount of light shone is deemed adequate by God, by some standard, even though not all humans take it to heart.

Although one can speculate that later, even more spectacular demonstrations, occurred, that are recounted in the Bible; perhaps as follow-ups. Yet these too, have not been represented to man in a way such that all are convinced.

Presumably, an existent God would know about this state of affairs. I believe faith that God knows what He is doing, would be an essential consideration, here, to put an end to the questioning and doubt. That is, if there were a God, I would impute that He knows what He is doing.

Originally posted by JS357

Something in the heart of man can be wrong, even when he has a clear understanding of spiritual truths, doctrinal precepts, interpretations of passages.

Earlier:

[quote]We do not have only the Scripture alone. We also have the Holy Spirit and the apostles and prophets.

In each age, I believe, the three work together to shine light up ng and doubt. That is, if there were a God, I would impute that He knows what He is doing.

We went into the idea of who is qualified to be the third leg of this stool, or to access how well the three are doing (the "checkers." ) We identified a split on this, between those who accept the Apostolic succession, and those who don't.

Do you think that the twelve apostles would have understood that millions of Christians world wide were taught to worship Mary ?

I think if Peter had seen such a practice his teeth would have fallen out of his mouth to the ground in amazement. "WHAT HAPPENED HERE ???"

"Well Peter, those who automatically succeeded you in the office of head of the church taught that this was the right way to be a Christian."

I think he would have not understood this development.

We now speak of there being something wrong with the recipients, that hinders their receptiveness to what the light shines upon. The example being, the Biblical account of God on Sinai.

Sorry if the analogy wasn't too helpful. But the revelation of God whether by this public vision or by the Scripture was the point. It was too easy for those who should have known better to be in apostasy.

Not all were carried away in the apostasy though.

The example you give is not how well the word of scriptures/Spirit/apostles/prophets on the incident have been received, it is how well the actual incident (God on Sinai) was received.

I think better examples, more up to date ones, might be found in the seven letters to the churches in Asia in the book of Revelation.

We must assume God knows how much "oomph" to put into both the incidents, and the followup recounting of the incident, to shine sufficient light.

Apparently the amount of light shone is deemed adequate by God, by some standard, even though not all humans take it to heart.

Apparently, Christ expects that SOME of His people, when He returns, would have had more enlightenment and SOME less. Concerning His second coming and settling up matters with His servants He said:

"And that slave who knew his master's will and did not prepare or do according to his will, will receive many lashes;

But he who did not know, yet did things worthy of stripes, will receive few lashes.

But to every one to whom much has been given, much will be required from him; and to whom much has been committed, they will ask of him all the more." (Luke 12:47,48)

The Lord Jesus seems to expect that different Christians would have had different amounts of truth available to them.

Although one can speculate that later, even more spectacular demonstrations, occurred, that are recounted in the Bible; perhaps as follow-ups. Yet these too, have not been represented to man in a way such that all are convinced.

Presumably, an existent God would know about this state of affairs. I believe faith that God knows what He is doing, would be an essential consideration, here, to put an end to the questioning and doubt. That is, if there were a God, I would impute that He knows what He is doing.

In my prayers to the Lord I often spend some time to praise Him for this. That is just how much experience He has and how marvelously everything is under His soveriegn control.

He indeed knows what is going on. Praise Him.

Originally posted by jaywill

We went into the idea of who is qualified to be the third leg of this stool, or to access how well the three are doing (the "checkers." ) We identified a split on this, between those who accept the Apostolic succession, and those who don't.

Do you think that the twelve apostles would have understood that millions of Christians world wide ...[text shortened]... g is under His soveriegn control.

He indeed knows what is going on. Praise Him.

Do you think that the twelve apostles would have understood that millions of Christians world wide were taught to worship Mary ?

I think if Peter had seen such a practice his teeth would have fallen out of his mouth to the ground in amazement. "WHAT HAPPENED HERE ???"

"Well Peter, those who automatically succeeded you in the office of head of the church taught that this was the right way to be a Christian."

I think he would have not understood this development.

While it would be strange indeed for me to be associated with your conversion to Roman Catholicism, I suggest that you do a little more research on the role of Mary in Catholic theology. I was never taught to worship Mary. We were taught to venerate her, and in prayer, we called upon her to intercede for us. I did a bit of checking before replying here, and what I was taught, seems to he the official line. We were also told to expect this misunderstanding among non-Catholics.

From a secular perspective, I think that Mary filled in for the goddess figures of the converts from pagan or gentile beliefs. It would not surprise me if the parish priests and missionaries were lenient and patient toward the people's desire to have a female deity to worship, especially if they had one before. I believe a lot of local deities and demigods were transmogrified into Christian saints, archangels, etc. One difference between the Catholics and other Christians is that the Catholics were there first, dealing with these kinds of issues. The Protestants can claim correctness because they weren't there.

About the rest, I suppose we are wrapping this side chat up. Thanks.