Whether it was an invention or a revelation, we will only know for sure after we get to the other side. I expect we will all be surprised, and God will be merciful that none of us really got it right, because, how could we?
If it were a true revelation that meant that everyone was wrong about the nature of the Church for 1500 years, which by extension means that the Church was wrong about its own self-definition for all that time. This strikes me as ridiculous, especially since St Paul calls the Church "the pillar and ground of the truth." Not sure how that could possibly make sense if what the Church believed about herself wasn't true.
Of course, Luther believed that all the Church fathers got Paul wrong too, so there is a type of twisted logic at play there.
Again, we are in the realm of axiomatic logic here, and I donтАЩt find it fruitful to argue about the matter. One manтАЩs twisted is anotherтАЩs clear as day, so just wager as you will and be at peace.
I agree with Sethu... recognizing that what you present is your sincere belief, and if it is not only your church's teaching, but an accurate reflection of the will of God, then you would be absolutely correct. Clearly Protestant teaching... whether Luther's, Calvin's, the Anabaptists', the Moravians', or others, means something went wrong at some point in Christian history. It doesn't have to mean that the Apostles were wrong, one could easily say that as the church became more organized over a vast territory it took some wrong turns that were more worldly than spiritual. At the time Jon Hus was persecuted and martyred, there were no less than three Popes. What did Paul mean by "the church"? He was initiating and ministering to a number of individual congregations, a tiny minority afloat in a vast empire.
John 16:13 -- "When the Spirit of Truth shall come He will guide you into all truth (but be patient, as it's going to take a millennium and a half, give or take)."
The fact that you had to add a parenthetical interpretation (albeit sardonically) to render the meaning of the passage specific, undermines any claim that this means the wealthy and powerful hierarchy of a well-endowed institution will be absolutely correct on spiritual matters at all times.
It took a minute to realize you were being sardonic, but after that your point was quite clear. We have very different perspectives, and no way to prove either one.
That's within the realm of possibility, and therefore nothing to argue against. Of course there are Mennonites who believe that their church organization is the form of the earliest Christians, with bishop being a local church office, not a suzerain of a larger territory encompassing many churches. They may be right. Its hard to know, and so many have a vested interest in insisting that what they do now is the right way.
True but immaterial. It was still an invention 1500+ years after the fact.
Whether it was an invention or a revelation, we will only know for sure after we get to the other side. I expect we will all be surprised, and God will be merciful that none of us really got it right, because, how could we?
I vote for revelation, insofar as it wasnтАЩt known before, in which case itтАЩs restoration.
If it were a true revelation that meant that everyone was wrong about the nature of the Church for 1500 years, which by extension means that the Church was wrong about its own self-definition for all that time. This strikes me as ridiculous, especially since St Paul calls the Church "the pillar and ground of the truth." Not sure how that could possibly make sense if what the Church believed about herself wasn't true.
Of course, Luther believed that all the Church fathers got Paul wrong too, so there is a type of twisted logic at play there.
Again, we are in the realm of axiomatic logic here, and I donтАЩt find it fruitful to argue about the matter. One manтАЩs twisted is anotherтАЩs clear as day, so just wager as you will and be at peace.
I agree with Sethu... recognizing that what you present is your sincere belief, and if it is not only your church's teaching, but an accurate reflection of the will of God, then you would be absolutely correct. Clearly Protestant teaching... whether Luther's, Calvin's, the Anabaptists', the Moravians', or others, means something went wrong at some point in Christian history. It doesn't have to mean that the Apostles were wrong, one could easily say that as the church became more organized over a vast territory it took some wrong turns that were more worldly than spiritual. At the time Jon Hus was persecuted and martyred, there were no less than three Popes. What did Paul mean by "the church"? He was initiating and ministering to a number of individual congregations, a tiny minority afloat in a vast empire.
John 16:13 -- "When the Spirit of Truth shall come He will guide you into all truth (but be patient, as it's going to take a millennium and a half, give or take)."
Come on, man.
The fact that you had to add a parenthetical interpretation (albeit sardonically) to render the meaning of the passage specific, undermines any claim that this means the wealthy and powerful hierarchy of a well-endowed institution will be absolutely correct on spiritual matters at all times.
I think you missed the point, but never mind.
It took a minute to realize you were being sardonic, but after that your point was quite clear. We have very different perspectives, and no way to prove either one.
That's within the realm of possibility, and therefore nothing to argue against. Of course there are Mennonites who believe that their church organization is the form of the earliest Christians, with bishop being a local church office, not a suzerain of a larger territory encompassing many churches. They may be right. Its hard to know, and so many have a vested interest in insisting that what they do now is the right way.
The way people argue about what the "Tradition really says" and how the "Church really was" makes me think of a Monty Python skit.
You should not be a Catholic then, Eastern or otherwise. Rosenberg has an excuse -- he's a Protestant.
Well, fortunately you're not the arbiter of that, are you? Oh it worries me so that I don't live up to your standard of being a Catholic. . . .
Don't care one way or another, personally. I'm just not a fan of people willfully muddying the waters.
An axiomatic disagreement, as I said.
Agreed. In fact, I suspect God frowns on those who donтАЩt have the humility to know that they donтАЩt have all the answers.