The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

I'm not sure to which councils you refer, but some of the earliest ones had no "scriptures" to refer to other than the Old Testament since it was these same leaders who convened in the late 4th century to decide what exactly would BE "scripture"...though, of course, nothing was unanimous, but decisions were made. Unanimous-ness (unanimity?) has never been the standard to formalize a church decision. I think it is we American Christians who have the hardest time realizing that the Church is NOT a democratic institution. I think most of us would like to think that all Christians throughout history have had an "equal vote" in all church decisions, but it is not so, nor was it designed that way.

_________________
in Christ,

bp

Well, I have to concur.

Which is why I firmly believe we need to spend less time chatting it, and letting words be our witness; and start living it. By living it, and experiencing His love through us to those in need, I think we gain an anchor to help digest the rhetoric we study.

Without the DOING I heavily question anyone's desire to teach theology to me. If they aren't living it and think sitting at a desk postulating is "living the faith" is really the way to go, they don't know God in my book and their comments have no value.

THROUGH works we are taught, not only scripture.

It's about teaching us a new life, not teaching us what the philosophy of that new life is.

For example, the council that decided anyone who does not declare "Mary is the Mother of God" should be excommunicated -- this was not clearly revealed in scripture and certainly should not be a basis for forcibly excluding someone from the church and declaring he is not one of God's people.
Or the council that declared she remain a perpetual virgin.
Or the council that decided the Father and Son were of the same substance.

I think the larger question -- should the vote of a group of believers hundreds of years after the apostles be binding on believers now? Did they have the authority to forever decide truth in a matter such as this?
My answer is no -- we are today obligated to assess these things ourselves.

_________________
Cobra (the car, not the poisonous reptile)
all scripture is NRSV unless otherwise noted

I'm reading a book by Bruce Shelley or Shelly on the Church History to get a better overview of this sort of thing.

Yes C, you have the gist of it right.

My caveat though, is that we don't give those councils enough credit for what they DID do. We tend to accept some conclusions and toss out others. Sometimes I think we lose the baby in the bathwater expulsion. This comment isn't reflective on something you had said specifically but my observation with the Church as a whole.

I think it all feeds my argument though, if we LIVE the faith before we proclaim ourselves educated we'll be better off. If we have the people who live their faith daily by showing love to neighbors, etc.. do the voting, we'll get better votes.

...but see you are coming at these questions from a completely different perspective than did the councils who came to such decisions. You are requiring that everything be "revealed" in scripture, i suppose, yet as i've said several times, scripture alone ("sola scriptura") was not the underlying foundational principle to determine truth at these councils since these same people had not yet even decided upon what THEY would call scripture and what they would not. This becomes a foundational difference in many discussions here. One side thinks everything must first be revealed in scripture, the other side thinks a group of church leaders were given the authority to first determine what would BE scripture, and then also they would have the authority to formulate doctrines, MOSTLY based on those scriptures, but also handed down by tradition (since they knew that EVERYTHING had not been written down by the apostles). The definition and formulation of "The Trinity" is a good early case in point. The apostles never mentioned the word, nor did they come up with a hard and fast definition of such a doctrine. No, it was the later councils who defined this doctrine, and many others. Again, the bible is not a book of doctrines and definitions. When a person starts to think that it is, then we end up with a myriad of interpretations as to what those doctrines are.

_________________
in Christ,

bp

Ah, Dinhay, you can lead the counter question as who choose what books to go into the bible and why? Beyond that you can ask why those in charge edited parts of the bible to make it fit their faith better?

Why do we have Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John rather than Mary, Judas, Thomas, and the Nazarenes?

Why four gospels and not three, or five?

The problem with using the bible as 'gospel' is that its all man-made (maybe divine inspired, but still man-made). In fact I'm moved by reading the Dao-de-jing or Yi-Jing (Tao Te Ching or I Ching) as much as the bible, they all hold truths inside ready for you to discover.

I know my views maybe heretical in some circles, but thankfully I live in a time and place where I can discuss my views with others with no fear of reprisals.

Maybe it's a left-over from my Anglican days but I still believe in the Trinity and that Jesus is divine. So I can count myself as a Christian and am proud to do so!

Kenny

_________________

Yes, the DOING of BEING a CHRISTian is the ultimate reason we are here, "...for we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do," and so i would say that if we are not DOING the DOING/BEING, we may not actually BE a CHRISTian. In my view, formulating the creeds and doctrines are just a way of helping the individual believer to know his/her faith, what he/she believes, as well as maybe some guidance in the "do" or "don't do" categories. Much the same as when Paul and Peter wrote about how to live holy lives. I think that is why some of these discussions are quite healthy. A good case in point is precisely what you are bringing up here...that we are to be LOVING each other, and the world around us. If we do not discuss that point (though it is not a "doctrine"), some who have been erroneously taught might think that actually loving their neighbor is not part and parcel of BEING a CHRISTian...and so they might go on with their life thinking all they need to do is "believe" and everything will be fine, and they will make it to heaven, as is their only goal. But when we can teach others that we are to actually be DOING something down here for God and for others, they not only have a richer more fuller life down here, but the rewards in heaven would be more tremendous as well (that is, IF there are different rewards in heaven, which could be another discussion, or it could be that just getting to heaven IS that reward for being Christ to others down here.)

This dovetails back into that other thread we had going about whether loving one's neighbor is an "essential" of the faith. I have yet to see that at the top of the list of any church's "What We Believe" page, but i would answer that it IS an essential if not THEE essential right behind, "Loving God with one's heart, mind, soul, and strength."

Let us not forget that Jesus told the people to OBEY even the Pharisees BECAUSE of the authority given to them. They sat on the seat/chair/place of authority of Moses. But they were also warned to not DO everything the Pharisees did. Apparently many of them were hypocrites, not practicing what they preached (just like me, and maybe a few others?), and yet apparently Jesus knew they were PREACHING the right things, just not doing them. So it was with the early church and it's leaders. They were given the same authority to preach, and to preach a unified body of beliefs. Of course, like the Pharisees and The Twelve, the Church authorities have ALWAYS been composed of mere human beings, imperfect as you and I, and so leaders were bound to stray here and there, but that would not negate their teachings. Unity was key, not dividing over small (or even large!) disagreements here and there.

Today we are the opposite of the early church. We change churches like we change our clothes sometimes. We get offended by a single sermon so we go somewhere else...or worse, we start our own church because of the offense...or list of offenses. Though we might think we are being "lead by the Spirit", i think we are being Decieved. The Spirit is not about division, but unity and peace. How often have you heard of a person who leaves his second/new church to go back to his first/original church to re-unite with them...and claiming the Spirit was leading him back to it? It seems rare these days, but if we all were to go back from whence we came, we would once again be united...warts and all.

_________________
in Christ,

bp

Hi Kenny,

Very interesting...and probably worthy of a new thread...maybe one something like this, "All religions have at least SOME truth to them", to which i would fully concur. I think I will start a new one on "Councils and Authority"...

_________________
in Christ,

bp

I'm betting that you've not read those other "gospels" nor done the homework on how far removed from the time of the Apostles when they were written.

Methinx once one gets past the interest of the argument, and looks at the legs supporting the argument, one quickly jumps off the table before it collapses under yas.!!!

Ditto, my good friend, Mega Dittos!

: )

_________________
in Christ,

bp

barpadre,

I can show you film, coach you, do practice swings, and talk about theories all day long. If I'm trying to get you to CHANGE from batting left handed to RIGHT HANDED, it's not going to become natural until you practice it enough and we can help you during the exercise.

That is why the early church, The Way, spent so much time doing the works. THROUGH the works of love through faith, they learned to love as God wanted them to love.

Do we doubt God has a capable teacher? Do we think we are BETTER than His chosen representative?

I dunno. Today I think the church has turned its back on the works, and lives in Cheap grace.

bp writes:

No, but I am saying:
"If you want to decide something that is not revealed in scripture, that's fine, but you don't have authority to excommunicate anyone who doesn't accept your opinion."

It's fine if you personally, or if you and a bunch of friends, want to decide you believe Mary is the Mother of God. If you want to excommunicate anyone who doesn't accept that statement, it's no longer fine.

It's fine if you want to believe that Jesus and the Father are the same substance. If you want to declare anyone who does not accept that as fact is not a Christian (or is a heretic), it is not fine.

You have to know when to hold them, and when to fold them, and know when you have the right to declare they are not in the fold.
A person can believe everything revealed in scripture about the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and not believe that the Father and Son are the same substance. That person should not be declared a heretic and there should be no anathema involved.

_________________
Cobra (the car, not the poisonous reptile)
all scripture is NRSV unless otherwise noted

HAH! HE HAS JOKES!!! I LOVE IT!!!!! Who'd have thunk it!!!!!!

And snake dood, I'd have to say you should be very very afraid. I can sit in the boat you draw here and not only stay in it with you, but I won't even rock it! The only thing keeping your comment from perfect in my view is you don't tell people to get out and live more read less!

Oh yes! I TOTALLY agree. And the funny thing about DOING stuff for other people is that you can talk about it all day, talk about the benefits of doing it, etc....but until a person actually does it and experiences doing things unselfishly for others (and NOT just so they can pat themselves on the back), there is an amazing change that begins to take place inside.

Just do it.

_________________
in Christ,

bp

Xian writes:

See my avatar. With the top down, it is really hard to keep the pages from blowing around.

_________________
Cobra (the car, not the poisonous reptile)
all scripture is NRSV unless otherwise noted