Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To Akriboo
(Date Posted:19/05/2009 16:45:51)
Good morning, Akriboo.
Yes, long-time, no-hear but covertly active in reading, researching and pondering. I just can’t thank you enough for your knowledge, wisdom and assistance since leaving Revival. You are valued dearly in my heart!
And I do appreciate it, but it's always been the case that I'm happy and content to assist those who seek my help, and who value it.
“'One' implies a Church united (by the Spirit) under Christ." Does not the implication rather rests in that the Church is 'One' because its members; 1. Are all united under one government, 2. All profess the same faith, 3. All join in a common worship?
Not really, as there's something of a difference between the notions of 'unity' and 'unanimity'. The former implies a united purpose, the latter infers an artificial attempt at wholesale agreement. Consequently, the 'one' government under which all Christians are united is the headship of Christ. The 'one' faith which all Christians profess is that "Jesus is Lord". The 'one' worship which unites us all is that which is properly directed to God through Christ, empowered as it is by his Spirit.
After all, Christ Himself declared that the unity of his followers should bear witness to Him. The unity and brotherhood promised by Christ are to be the visible manifestation on earth of the Devine union (John 17:21). Paul reaffirms this in that he sees in the visible unity of the body of Christ an external sign of the oneness of the Spirit who dwells within it. There is, he says, “one body and one Spirit” (Ephesians 4:4)
Division and fracture within the Body of Christ ought not to be; however, I think that such is largely, and invariably, unavoidable this side of Glory. Consequently, we, the Church, must cast our net as widely as possible, and be generous in our estimations of who are our brethren. But 'generosity' doesn't extend to the acceptance of heresy. And it is for this reason that the various Revivalist groups are not part-and-parcel of what is the Christian Church, ontologically.
I just wonder if the Church was divided into two or more mutually exclusive bodies, how she could witness to that oneness of Spirit in unity. As in a living organism the union of members in one body is the sign of the one animating principle within...so it is with the Church, so I speculate. Is it no so that should we as members of the Church being united by the profession of the same faith, speak of external profession as well as internal acceptance?
Of course, but such is often far harder to achieve in practice than in principle.
Despite what one wants to believe or say (“Protestant arm of the Western Church identifies with the 'marks' too”), can there be a unity of Spirit compatible with differences of Creed?
I think you'll find that all branches of Christianity (Catholic: both Eastern and Western, and Protestant) subscribe to the one creed: that of Nicea. We all accept what it presents, and we all acknowledge the subsequent confirmations and expansions to this creed (such as the Definition of Chalcedon). So differences in ecclesial tradition and culture ought not to be confused as being differences in credal recognition, acceptance or submission.
I don't subscribe to the infallibility of the Church doctrine, just exploring the possibility. I have come to learn that my interpretation of scripture is not necessarily the correct interpretation.
Indeed.
Outside the scriptures, one only need to look at the dark ages and read some accounts mentioned in Foxe's Book of Martyrs to see the error of that doctrine.
No doubt, but why limit yourself to a consideration of just the Western expression of Christianity? Why not review the Eastern, Near Eastern and African situations as well and in doing so limit the affects of cultural and spiritual myopia?
Inside the scriptures, (and from a biblical point of view), has theological errors been corrected by the Apostles and the transmission of such theology been handed down to successors, hence the infallibility?
The basics of our shared faith have been agreed upon since the very beginning, and they have been transmitted faithfully over the centuries. Different cultural and social conditions over this period; however, have led to different emphases being accorded priority in different communions. Such accounts for the vast majority of supposed differences between various branches of Christianity. But when the taxonomy of doctrine is considered, the 'core' beliefs are as they've always been.
I agree with you that I need to expand my horizons and focus in other directions, which I will. However, you talk about unity, holiness, universality and apostolic, "Well, such is one set of 'marks', to be certain. 'One' implies a Church united (by the Spirit) under Christ. 'Holy' means to be set about for God's purposes. 'Catholic' infers universality, a Church that isn't restricted by geography, time, culture or circumstances. 'Apostolic' directs us to the nature of the Church's witness and ministry. None of these marks, by the way, are limited in application to the Church of Rome." Could not Revival see that this applies to them in the same manner as "the Protestant arm of the Western Church identifies with the 'marks' too"?
No doubt they probably could, although I doubt they'd want to! But in any case, such a arrogation on their part would be wrong. Given that they can't get something so simple as the basic gospel of grace correct, it would be the height of presumption for them to then believe that they belong to the historic and orthodox Christian Church.
The Apostles corrected the Church, but who corrects the Church today? Is this the reason why we have so many factions? The study helped me to understand that the body of Christ is one (without divisions) united by the Spirit of Christ into one holy universal and apostolic (foundation of the apostles teaching) church.
Well, the apostles didn't have the complete canon of Scripture, as the New Testament was still in the process of being written. And it is the New Testament which 'interprets' the Old Testament for the Church Universal. When combined together as Christian Scripture we have the Apostle's doctrine, the so-called "deposit of faith". Finally, it is for this reason that Protestantism maintains the Church stands under Scripture rather than over it.
If I apply this direction to Revival, it comes up short by a long way and go further to suggest that it is not a member of the body of Christ...am I too presumptuous??
Not at all. Revivalism isn't Christian; the Revivalist sects are not a part of the Christian Church.
Blessings,
Ian
(Message edited by Didaktikon On 19/05/2009 17:23:09)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
