Constantine Messed With Us - Part 2 "what fun"
My friend said in light of my post down the line, "You have a follow-up I suppose? This is a bit light on evidence and a bit full of assertions as well as undefined terms (institutionalized).
As requested - I love follow ups! Michael Frost writes from a different perspective than some. Sometimes people write to prove a point and support their position and others write with the big picture in mind. Frost is a big picture person and he lays it out in a way that reveals in part why the church in America has become and "institution" instead of continuing to be a movement. Inward focused "take care of us" churches without being mobilized "out and into" the world as the main thing become institutions.
Michael Frost in "Exiles" page 4 writes, "'Christendom' is the name given to the religious culture that has dominated Western society since the fourth century. Awakened by the Roman emperor Constantine, it was the cultural phenomenon that resulted when Christianity was established as the official imperial religion, moving it from being a marginalized, subversive, and persecuted movement to being the only official religion in the empire. Whereas followers of Jesus at one time had met secretly in homes and underground catacombs, now they were given some of the greatest temples and meeting places in the empire. They were, in quite a literal sense, handed the keys of the Roman kingdom. As C.K. Chesterton is noted to have said, 'The coziness between church and state is good for the state and bad for the church.'"
Contantine messed with the Expansion of pure "Organic" Christianity. What can be referred to as an out of control disciple making movement before the 4th century soon turned into a hierarchically controlled and diminishing movement. God help us! It's too late for Constantine who is presumed to have had no personal relationship with Jesus. He made Christianity the official imperial religion for peace purposes and not because he himself believed in it.
We thank Constantine and others who followed him and his institutional methods for Christianity's slumber in America. But we will not let Constantine and others win. The Church of Jesus Christ will survive and a movement has begun that will leave the institution of control behind in her wake.
posted by Bob Carder @ 1:20 PM
26 comments
26 Comments:
I would be OK saying that Constantine made Christianity the unofficial state religion, because the religion of the Emperor tends to have a certain influence, but it was not the "official" state religion. I believe that it became official under Theodosius' reign.
"Contantine messed with the Expansion of pure "Organic" Christianity. What can be referred to as an out of control disciple making movement before the 4th century soon turned into a hierarchically controlled and diminishing movement."
When you said Christianity became a hierarchically controlled and diminishing movement, what do you mean by this? How was this a result of Constantine...that is, what specifical historical actions made this take place.
Also, I think your understanding of the first 3 centuries of Christian life and belief may be a bit underdeveloped. I see little difference between the life and thought of Christians pre-Constantine and the life and thought of them post-Constantine, except that many orthodox bishops were exiled. What difference do you find?
Slatts - You'll have to take some of this up with Michael Frost. Right?
Persecution has always fueled the Jesus movement of disciple-making. Examples are obvious and numerous. When Constantine made Christianity the official state religion the persecution of the Christ followers largely stopped. A huge switch. You cannot force Christianity as Constantine intended. What looked like a good thing was not!
The priesthood of all believers was set aside and a new kind of priesthood followed. The Church moved from Holy Spirit led to man led and a move from the world into the cathedral followed.
Before the 4th Century: As stated I find an exploding world changing move of God through Christ followers.
After Constantine and his making Christianity the official state religion the sad result is clear. Michael Frost writes in his book "Exiles" (a must read)"Members of this society were assumed to be Christian by birth rather than by choice. Christianity became the official part of the established culture of the empire.In some countries, the king or queen became the head of the church. In Germany, the church actually became the function of the state. The net effect over the entire Christendom epoch was that Christianity moved from being a dynamic, revolutionary, social, and spiritual movement to being a static religious institution with its attendant structures, priesthoods and sacraments."
I'll let others weigh in before coming back.
I have no agenda here nor am I attacking a particular church - I am hoping you and others will see why the church in America is stalling or creeping. At the defense of Christ followers in America most were taught the wrong main thing.
I feel a headache coming on! THEODOSIUS made Christianity the official state religion. OK?
I would take up Micheal Frost on some of this if the opportunity arose, but as things are, and since you have adopted his ideas, I can only take them up with you ;)
"You cannot force Christianity as Constantine intended." In what way did Constantine "force" Christianity again? Was there some edict or rule? Or anything from history besides blanket statements with no evidence to support them?
I am sure you have no agenda and really believe what you say, but I have a curiosity for grounding my beliefs. So when you say "force Christianity", I automatically seek evidence, but am frusterated to see nothing specific.
Concerning the switch from the priesthood of all believers to "a new kind of priesthood" there are two points of clarification. First, it is possible for there to be a priesthood of all believers as well as a more specialized ministerial priesthood, such as possessed by the Apostles - they are not mutually exclusive, so it is a bit simplistic to hold them in opposition.
Second, the historical data show that this "development" came centuries before Constantine. In the Bible there was no real distinction between bishop and presbyter made explicit, though two different terms were used. In the Didache (AD 70) and in the 7 letters of St Ignatius of Antioch (AD 116) the distinction is made clearer. Each local church has a bishop under which are his presbyers (from which we derive the word 'priest') under which are the deacons. This is not a Constantinian development, but an organic Christian one.
You also mentioned the introduction of the sacraments. This would be funny if you weren't being serious. Such a statement makes me wonder (and please do not take this in a mean spirit) whether you have read any of the primary texts of the ante-nicene fathers, or only read secondary texts about them. The sacramental understanding of the Church does not emerge from Constantine, but from Christian tradition.
The latin term "sacramentum" found its beginning in Tertullian, a century before Constantine. Further it was the translation of the greek work "mysterion". Even to this day the Greek east tends to refer to the sacraments as "mysteries" while the Latin west calls them "sacraments". The idea did not originate with Tertullian, but the term arose in the early 200s.
And just so I am fair, I will be ready to supply texts demonstrating my assertions ;)
Slatts - I think you may be trying to fix finer points of blame. I think history is pretty clear that the conquests at the leadership of Constantine ended an era of persecution for the church and ushered in an era of acceptance for the church.(Edict of Milan, early in 313 finally enforced by the killing of Licinius in 325)
According to a Catholic Encyclopedia
*"Constantine can rightfully claim the title of Great, for he turned the history of the world into a new course and made Christianity, which until then had suffered bloody persecution, the religion of the State."
I agree with you that it was unofficial but the effect was the same.
Building projects such as the BASILICA OF CONSTANTINE brought great visibility to the church and social acceptance for the upper class. Prior to Constantine the Christian faith was known as the poor man's religion. Wealth has corrupted the church and Constantine helped usher in the wealthy.
If he had gone further he may have done more good than harm. Instead he tried to unite all religions under the Sun God which he claimed was also God the Father of the Christians. This went so far that again the encyclopedia quotes -
*"many of the emperors yielded to the delusion that they could unite all their subjects in the adoration of the one sun-god who combined in himself the Father-God of the Christians and the much-worshipped Mithras; thus the empire could be founded anew on unity of religion. Even Constantine, as will be shown farther on, for a time cherished this mistaken belief."
It is this change that has hobbled the church and led it into many corrupted ways.
The changes that were set in motion by Constantine - whether he intended them or not - led to centuries of corruption and control where state and religion were used to conquer, control and compel people.
The bigger picture I think Bob (Bob correct me if I’m wrong) is talking about here is that the underground church was structurally and substantially different from the accepted church after Constantine and the prior church must be renewed.
*Source quoted: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm
There is a major difference between and official and an unofficial state religion. In this case, there is no compusion under an unofficial religion, but under the state religion of later emperors, not being a Christian becamse substantially harder. Christianity under Constantine was tolerated. He returned confiscated goods, he tried to get Arians and Catholics in unity, he build churches for Christians, he enforced good laws in accord with Christians social doctrine, etc.
Being the first Christian emperor was a new mold, so certainly there are things we would say, "well, sir, I think I would have done it differently"...yeah with 1700 years of hindsight that is easy!
But it is this:
"The bigger picture I think Bob (Bob correct me if I’m wrong) is talking about here is that the underground church was structurally and substantially different from the accepted church after Constantine and the prior church must be renewed."
that I am not sure the evidence warrents. What was structurally and substantially different? The continuity is the thing that amazes me! All the talk about discontinuity is what confuses me.
Slatts “There is a major difference between and official and an unofficial state religion. In this case, there is no compusion under an unofficial religion, but under the state religion of later emperors, not being a Christian becamse substantially harder.”
Not being a Christian did not become any harder since you cannot be forced to be a Christian. However, many non-Christians were forced into the church thus corrupting it even further.
Slatts – “Being the first Christian emperor was a new mold, so certainly there are things we would say, "well, sir, I think I would have done it differently"...yeah with 1700 years of hindsight that is easy!”
Don’t take the dissatisfaction with Constantine so personally. We will all be judged by history. Some forgotten, some applauded, some derided. Not everyone will agree. The post is talking about the eventual outcome of Constantine’s takeover. This includes what came after him as well.
Slatts -"that I am not sure the evidence warrents. What was structurally and substantially different? "
Structurally –
Pre-Constantine - met underground, feared for their lives thus requiring huge personal risk to join, did not operate on compulsion or social acceptance.
Post-Constantine - Met in large state funded facilities, corrupted by politics, simony, indulgences. People were forced to be baptized into the religion as a part of military conquest.
Substantially – Pre-Constantine – one on one discipleship model, Strong community among believers – all were welcome and included, deterred a consumer mentality due to the danger of following, Serious accountability to the teaching of Christ, a count the cost mentality to evangelism
Post-Constantine – Group based discipling model, ever weakening community among believers due mainly to the influx of wealth leading to a very exclusionary community by the middle ages, Promoted a consumer mentality due to the social acceptance of belonging, Accountability to the church placed above accountability to Christ’s teachings resulting in simony and indulgences etc.., a compel them to join mentality towards evangelism.
I will add this only because we have spent time together and I think I see where you are coming from with the whole continuity thing. The internal functions of the church did stay very similar, such as communion, baptism (except for the compulsion part), the traditions of the service.
I hope this helps you to better understand the mentality expressed in these posts. It is the negative things added by man we want to strip away not the good initiated by God.
I am impressed that you are hanging in here. This has to be a very different view point for you to process. I know how smart you are and I am glad to see you using smaller words now - I was beginning to feel like I was in college on a few of those posts.
Thanks Terry. Small words work just as good as big ones ;)
When the Christian communities met "underground" it was often large groups in the catacombs or in a rich Christian's home, or even sometimes in a Church built for that very purpose. The persecutions were more often localized events and there were sometimes generations of lives in which there were lulls in persecution. In such cases, churches were erected.
After Constantine I see little evidence of Christian communities becoming more lax. It was largely the Christian laity that continued in the Nicene faith even after their bishops were exiled and the political powers embraced it. It is a testament to their integrity that they did not give in to Arianism.
the misuse of indulgences and simony would certinly become a grave problem later and it did grow out of the proximity of church/state relations. I agree that that result was very unfortunate!
You want to remove the negative things added by man. I can agree with the statement, but I know we will have differences with exactly what constitutes "negative things".
I believe it was a necessary developmental step in the life of the Church. I never saw the purpose in the attempt to get back at the "early Church". She grows with time, understands the teachings she preserves more, and develops to meet every culture. It seems to me like a woman longing for her childhood. The Church must grow and develope, learning from her past, but not seeking to revive the moments of her childhood.
But as you all know, and this is the greatest, it is the good news and our orders to spread it that is most important, and I find it difficult to argue with you at times remembering the words of that wise Rabbi in the Scriptures: "keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this unertaking is of men, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!" (Acts 5:38-39)
My sincere purpose here is only to caution people for hasty judgment, because I know our hearts meet in Jesus, and I think our goals are ultimately one in the same.
You're either under the control of the Spirit, or under the spirit of control.
One of Constantine's actions that I think was devastating was his outlawing house churches and mandating that Christian begin meeting in official church buildings, many of which were converted pagan temples. That one act mummified the organic movement and placed it in a sarcophagus of institutionalism.
I just think the charge of "institutionalisim" is both vague (undefined) and confusing (makes a false difference between the pre-edict and post-edict church).
The Church was very "institutional" before Constantine commisioned church buildings. They held local councils, each local church had a bishop that officiated the Eucharist on the Lord's day (with assistant presbyters and deacons who carried the Euchatist to others not present), and they even recognized the preeminent authority of the bishop of Rome! There was already an hierarchical structure in the internal affairs of the Church before Constantine was even born.
I personally think that institutionalization is a good thing! It adds order and clarity to what would otherwise tend towards anarchy. But supposing we thought an "institutional religion" were bad, what truly changed? Was it not already "institutional"?
Slatts said:
"I personally think that institutionalization is a good thing! It adds order and clarity to what would otherwise tend towards anarchy."
Bill says:
You can have an institutional church that is dead or and living church that is messy.
Clearly, the church we see in the New Testament is living, vibrant, revolutionary, and world-changing...yet messy.
Clearly, the church we have in the Western world is orderly...yet dead and dying, dull, compromising, and powerless.
If Acts and Paul's epistles are all one uses to get a picture of the early church, I would suggest that it presents an insufficient picture. In fact all the extrabiblical writings also present an insufficient picture, but it is substantially more fleshed out.
Also the Church in the New Testament was rotting also! Already you had strains of Gnostic docetism inside. You had the Judaizers. You had factions of those baptized by Paul, Apollos, etc. The letter to the 7 churches in Revelation is also revealing of a Church that was failing.
In the Roman persecutions many recanted their Lord or handed over sacred books. It's not just a story of faith, but of failure.
The Church now is facing her own crisis, but its cause and cure are not by way of institutionalization or deconstruction of institutions. In every age all crises are overcome by living saints and the change in hearts they cause - these persons appear in institutionalized churches just as frequent (perhaps more so) as in lazze faire ones.
Slatts, Christianity has weathered many storms! Thank God! Throughout history nothing has held captive the mission of the movement any more than institutionizing the movement.
I fail to see the connection between the obstacles the early church experienced and how they have anything to do with the institution we are speaking of.
Throughout history there were obstacles that hindered the mission of Christ. Now we have the institution to deal with. You'll have to speaj forever to convince me otherwise and then you will lose.
Let's just see what happens to those who defend the institution over the mission of Jesus just like those who defended gnosticism.
You are starting at the wrong place. Check out the life and actions of Jesus and pay close attention to the people Jesus hung out with. It wasn't the instutional religious leaders. He would never hang out with those we think He would hang out with. We would find Him in bars and night clubs and communities. You wouldn't find Him in your Church shaking hands. See who Jesus hung out with to prove my point.
Slatts, it's time for all us to unite in following Jesus by going out and spending time with those who will never come into the structures of the organanized institution we now call church.
Jesus is never more present in your life and mine than when we are obeying His purposes and those purposes are never accomplished in ornate sanctuaries. Ornate cathedrals filled with treasures never change lives.
Thanks to Constantine and others before Him we have extravagent "so called" holy places to please us - while the world is starving to death for Jesus.
Now we have people who are more concerned about belonging to a certain denomination than they are about following Jesus.
If you love Jesus moe than anything - leave the institution for 6 months and see if I am right, Jesus is all you really need. Prove me wrong! Leave the institution and do what Jesus did when He walked the earth. Follow the Great Commmission purposes and see how it changes your life and those in the world.
I respect your loyalty to the institution you protect - but that institution is keeping you from ever experiencing what I now experience.
Love the institution if you want -but love the mission of Jesus and your responsibility to live the purposes of the Great Commission more.
Show me in Scripture where Jesus ever endorsed institutionalizing His movement.
I will look for your response to the previous paragraph and I don't need one of those around the barn commentaries from some ancient writer. Jesus went to where the people were.
Hummm I wonder why He didn't use His riches and power to build Cahedrals to amaze the world.
Organized religion has aways hindered God's work and perhaps that is why the Pharisees were so confronted by Him.
I don't want a "holy man" I want a Holy God who came to save the world because He loves us so much that He died for all.
Often those caught in the trappings of religion never break free. They like it too much! It's easier! It demands no sacrifice and I could go on.
Constantine and some before Him stopped (hindered)the very thing they may have promoted!
Bob, there is simply too much to discuss in your last comment. You challenged me to leave the "institution" and live missionally incarnationally etc.
It is impossible for me to leave the "institution" because to do so would be for me to violate my own conscience. It is immoral to reject something one has no reasonable doubt about. The Protestant doctrine on the Eucharist found not a single Christian defender in 1000 years. The Catholic doctrine, however, is found in Jn 6, 1 Cor 11, and the synoptic institution narratives, not to mention it was universally affirmed by all Christian writers of the first millenium.
Since I find no honest way to reject the Catholic, biblical, and traditional teaching on this, I cannot embrace a Christianity which does not hold this teaching. Based on only this criterion I could join the Eastern Orthodox church or the Anglican Church, but they are just as "institutionalized" as the Catholic one, which leaves me without the option of being a Christian anarchist.
The assumption behind the challenge however is that leaving the institution would enable me the chance to experience the life-changing gift of the Holy Spirit and to be led by Him to live an incarnational life grounded on the GC.
Only a person indifferent to authentic Catholic piety would suggest that one needs to leave the institution for that. That is exactly what the Mass is about and that is exactly what the Church is here to foster in her children. My goal in life is nothing other than to be a saint...that is, to let God do with me as He wills for the salvation of my soul and those he has entrusted to my responsibility.
That is what the devotions and masses and indeed doctrines and dogmas are all about. They are only in proper context seen connected to the love of God and nieghbor out of love of God.
As concerning whether Jesus envisioned an "organized" church and the challenge to produce biblical proof for this, I am afraid I cannot give a simple proof text, but I will get back to you with an essay on just this subject. But just to make my job possible, your challenge was for me to show proof that Jesus endorsed an "institutional" church. I must know what you mean by the term before I could ever dream to satisfy the challenge. If you define it, I can work from there. ;)
I am sure I read John 6 correctly when it says –
Jhn 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
The Catholic Position is this -
The Eucharist cannot be consecrated without a validly ordained priest.
Can you show me where you find support of this in any Scripture you quoted?
Is the method for “validly ordaining a priest” shown to us in Scripture?
Consider the possibility – The teaching of transubstantiation was a reaction to the early Gnostics, which could not partake, of such a thing. This would explain the later development of around 250 AD. It would also explain the symbolic language used by some early church fathers and a later confirmation by them of this doctrine. The church after Constantine then saw an opportunity for control by adding the requirement of being administered by an ordained priest.
I know this will send you into a tizzy but just consider it for a moment. If this requirement was so important - why would God leave it out of His instruction manual?
Also you say –
“which leaves me without the option of being a Christian anarchist.”
You say this as if it is a bad thing to be a Christian Anarchist.
This, I am afraid, leaves you unable to live like Christ – overturning the corrupt religious system of His day and truly touching people’s lives without an institution.
Slatts, It sure took you a long time to reveal your hand/motives. When I made the last post I knew you would not answer my questions because whenever I ask a question you do not answer, but, instead you return with a question and you want further defining on something that remains crystal clear.
If you cannot become missional with the priority of the Great Commission purposes unless you accept the words of Jesus which are higher than any tradition in Roman Catholicism. Jesus lived His life and passed on to us the mandate to carry on His life's work. My mother was raised a catholic and so my early years were spent in mass, so I do know more than you think.
As a pastor for 24 years I loved for catholics to visit and find something personal and when they finally broke from the institution into a personal and growing relationship with Jesus (over the catholic church) they became some of the most committed to the mission of Jesus.
I asked you to leave the instituion because the institution is keeping you from doing what Jesus said. Or you could just start doing what Jesus said. Which means you have to stop promoting your church over Jesus. Let's unite in fighting for Jesus and His cause. I do not promote my church over Jesus and I would ask you to do the same.
Constantine and few before Him messed up the mission of Jesus in her organic growing out of control ever expanding movement.
There will be born again catholics in heaven, but they are missional and they are leading people to Jesus and not just to church.
I could spend a year trying to answer your questions to my questions and never get an answer.
You are stuck! Hang with us see what God does to pet you free.
Slatts - You should read the article in the yesterday's post where the vatican is upset with the chinese government because they ordained several priests without the blessing of the vatican. Pope Benedict was very displeased and confrontive on the issue. The Chinese gov. ignored the strong rebuke of the pope.
Who cares about the popes blessing when Jesus gives it. This simply proves my point on the hierarchical structures that limit God. Control does hold the mission back at times.
Let's work for Jesus!
Terry, the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation was formally defined in 1215, hardly a reactionary effort against the gnostics and docetists of the early Church. Further, for extra-biblical Christian faith in the Eucharist as Jesus' body and blood one does not need to look at 250 or beyond, but a good 150 years earlier in the 7 letters of St Ignatius (particularly his letter to the Smyrneans)and then in 155 in the apology of Justin Martyr to Marcus Aurelius where he describes the Christian liturgy to the emperor. The only ones who had what could be called a "symbolic" teaching on this were Origen and Augustine, but in other places they show themselves to also be very "real" in their explanations. Even the Protestant scholar JND Kelly recognizes this universality of this Eucharistic faith. All the great Christian defenders of the faith defended this belief (Irenaeus defender against Gnostics, Athanasius defender against Arians, Augustine defender against donatists and pelagians). So if you want to believe you have a more authentic Christian understanding of the faith than saints and martyrs and great Christian heroes and in fact all Christians of the 1st millenium, that is up to you. I myself will stand with the universal belief of Christian doctors and saints.
You're question about the validity of priestly ordination for this sacrament was also attested to by St Ignatius (who was trained by John the Aposlte) but also in the insititution narrative. The gift was given to the Apostles, so it was their perogative to celebrate and confer its celebration as they saw fit, which has historically been done by the ordination of bishops and their ordained clergy. That really is a side point and I was not using that within my criterion, but I suppose it is a valid question.
I meant nothing rude with the term "Christian anarchist". I thought that if I had the pleasure of being "insitutionalized" then the opposite spectrum would have the pleasure of being "arachists"!
Bob, I would be delighted to answer your questions, but when there are 10 of them and they would all require a lengthy reply, it is hardly possible! It is not an unfair question to ask what you mean by "institutionalization". If it so plain then instead of telling me how plain it was, you could just as easily plainly explain it. That certainly shouldn't take a year of your time ;)
I am pleased you will allow some Catholics into Heaven. By God's mercy we shall no longer argue but rejoice in Christ's victory in the age to come.
Also, your raising the point of Pope Benedict's disapproval of the ordination of Chinese bishops without his blessing betrays a lack of sympathy that prevents you from seeing beyond the cosmetic issue. The Pope must approve all bishops. To circumvent this is to act against the jurisdiction of the Pope and to foster disobedience and schism. I do not imagine you could understand this in any way but beaurocratic bickering that takes away from Christ. But perhaps you will develop a sense to look at things more deeply and try to understand them from within.
Slatts - This will be hard for you to digest. But the harder you push back the harder it is to be less than direct.
It appears that you know what I mean by institution and institutionally - just see your own comments in your 5th, 6th and 7th posting.
It is clear you would rather respond immaturely by taking us down one rabbit trail after another rather than answer the questions. Note the last question you ignored when you asked me to define institutionalism.
As for your historical response to Terry and me you still refuse to go back to the record in Scripture and the life of Jesus and the acts of the Apostles and other Christ followers in His day. These guys you quote clearly missed the boat in their attempts to re-write Scripture. You missed it when you quote and follow their thoughts as if they are Scripture and always over the mission of Christ.
You need to quit throwing bologna at us and give us the New Testament example of the life of Christ and the actions of the Apostles and earliest Christ followers who were with Jesus and close to His ascension.
You are babbling or is it biloviating? Or is it both? It looks like a bad case of babbling to me.
Apparently, once worshipping the institution always worshipping the institution in your case. Or prove me wrong!
One of these days I'll write a blog on the difference between instituional living and Great Commissional living just for you.
We are in unity when we talk about Jesus and His mission. Other than that you are agenda driven.
No answer to my questions –
1. Can you show me where you find support of this in any Scripture you quoted?
2. Is the method for “validly ordaining a priest” shown to us in Scripture?
3. If this requirement was so important - why would God leave it out of His instruction manual?
Three straight forward questions with no answer.
If I have this right –
Jhn 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
Then why would I argue over a secondary issue like the Eucharist? Unless you believe that I cannot be saved without it? Is that the real issue here?
Do you believe I can obtain salvation and a full communion with God apart from the Catholic Church and the Eucharist?
Since you said of Bob ‘I am pleased you will allow some Catholics into Heaven.” I wonder if you will be so generous?
Terry asked of Slatts, Do you believe I can obtain salvation and a full communion with God apart from the Catholic Church and the Eucharist?
Since you said of Bob ‘I am pleased you will allow some Catholics into Heaven.” I wonder if you will be so generous?
Bob says to Slatts: I am waiting for your answer here.
Slatts - Would you answer the question, please?
In the meantime I have some calls to make, cards to write, fundraising to accomplish and last but never least -I must pray!
Bob, we have the same agenda: the love of God and the love of man out of love of God. To share the message of redemption in Jesus Christ. I praise you and Terry for your efforts in this endeavor and think it to be blessed by the Holy Spirit. We may differ on the "how" of it all, but really our agendas are one, and we are both quite driven by this agenda. I want people to come closer to Jesus Christ, and particularly I believe the Catholic Church has a good deal to offer, but I am quite happy with people deepening faith in Christ without an ecclesial change of denomination.
I am sorry if I am leading the convesation through tangents. I am trying to respond to certain things that I think lack truth. I respect Terry, but I think his treatment on the development of Eucharistic belief is flawed, so I addressed that. I only brought up the Eucharist as an example of why it would not be possible for me to leave my Church, because it would offend my conscience which holds me bound to honesty. And at this point I have no reasonable doubt about the biblical teaching on the Eucharist. One can discount all of Christianity after the last apostle died if one wants to, but I have no reason to believe they "missed the boat" in trying to "rewrite Scripture" since they are the ones who canonically sacntioned the biblical canon! It is obvious that they believed their faith to be biblical else they would not have formulated the canon and officiated it (special thanks to Athanasius and Augustine). The martyrdom and saintly living of the fathers I refer to rather tends to authenitcate their message. Not to mention they represent the pre-Constantine Church.
I emphasize these men not because I think they are an authority over against the Bible, for the Bible is inspired and has the Holy Spirit as its primary author. But this post was about history, and they represent the historical workings of the early Church and bear witness to the teaching of the Apostles. For the Bible was not as yet canonized and oral tradition was the method of choice as well as the context in which the Bible was written and canonized.
So I am sorry for making you bologna sandwiches and spouting nonsense. My biblical treatment will be in the making as soon as I know what you mean by "institutionalize". You mentioned that I already knew based on my earlier comments. I must confess when I wrote those I was not sure if I had in mind the same kind of "institutionalizing" you did, and feared I would belittled for "missig the boat". I am happy to see that maybe this one time I didn't misstep!
Sorry for the double post, but when I made my last one, there were two more added while I was typing!
I am sorry if I miss questions, sometimes I regard some as more important than others and ignore the ones I think are tangential or besides the point.
1. Any support of what?
2. Where in Scripture: I mentioned the institution narratives. Also in the first letter to Timothy you have the ordination of the laying on of hands mentioned.
3. I'm really sorry I have to ask what you are asking.
Do those that believe on Jesus Christ find life everlasting. Yes and No. John says yes, and it is important to see what he means, because James says even demons believe and presumably are not saved. If one tosses out a Scripture, I agree with it, but I am not a fan of simplistic proof-texting. The question is, what does John mean here.
Can you be saved without the Eucahrist? Yes and No. As I mentioned I will be happy to see you both in Heaven, presumably without having become Catholic.
Do I believe you can be saved without full communion with the Catholic Church. Yes and No! No one is saved outside the Church because she is the bride of Christ and he has no other. But must one necessarily be within the visible confines? No.
Slatts - No one is saved by the church and there is only one way to God and that is through His Son Jesus Christ. To become a Christ follower one must accept Him by faith and not of works. You must repent by praying directly to Him. You do not need baptism or communion to be saved. As a Christ follower to want to be baptised and you will ewant to partake of communion "by doing this in rememberance of Jesus" and His sacrifice.
Jesus is always ever present and we do not need to partake in the Lord's Supper to find Him.
I find it interesting that for you salvation has little or nothing to do with Jesus alone. I also find it interesting that there is no mention of believing in which means in this sense accepting Christ personally by FAITH alone.
Thus I have found Jesus by faith and I repent of my sin as needed and I love Him and obey Him and I do not need to rely on a church to find Him or stay with Him. The church is never a location the church is identified in Scripture as the people who have become folowers of Christ.
This is not judgemental but it could be personal. From Scripture alone: If a Catholic or anyone else does not personally receive Jesus and repent of their sin directly to Him in prayer -I do not see how they will go to heaven because God never allows His actions to violate what He has said in Scripture. He is always consistent in Word and Actions!
SLATTS - You answered yes and no but you never explained the yes and no in each particular place. Thus you once again did not fully answer the questions.
Assertion: "No one is saved by the church and there is only one way to God and that is through His Son Jesus Christ."
Response: Everyone is saved by the Church, which is the body of Christ. As you said, "Jesus Christ is the only way to God" and he and his bride the Church are one body.
A: "You do not need baptism or communion to be saved."
R: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience" (1 Pet 3:21)
"Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16) Luke would have been well-adivsed not to use the watery phrase "wash away" if he didn't want baptism associated.
"Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" (Jn 6:53)
A: "To become a Christ follower one must accept Him by faith and not of works."
R: "So you see a man is justified by works and not faith alone" (Jas 2:24)
I answered "yes and no" to many of those questions because they require more foundation and theological precision than a comment wall allows. If one is truly interested private correspondance with me will do, or one could consult encyclicals and apostolic exhortations for free on the Vatican's website.
Catholic indoctrinational "clutter".
James 2:23 "And so it happened just as the Scriptures say: "Abraham beleived in God, so God declared Him to be righteous" He was even called "the friend of God."
Followed by James 2:24
I said: To become a Christ follower one must accept Him by faith and not works" Please insert after works "alone"
Post a Comment
<< Home