Heretics?

[michael_legna]

Could you elaborate on this?   Maybe speak s l o w l y and use small words?   What would constitute the 'truth that the Church presents'? The 'Church' part is confusing me. Are we referring to 'the Body' or the the Catholic Church? And does the 'truth' include church memebrship in the Body or the RCC?  

Ok I will start by answering your recurring question.  When I said Church I meant the Roman Catholic Church (which was the topic of the conversation as it relates to salvation being tied to ones heretical standing relative to it).  Of course Catholics see the Roman Catholic Church as The Church, as in the one and only Church of Christ.

As for your first question, maybe an example will make it clearer.  Say Joe decides that all he has heard about the Catholic Church finally makes sense and he cannot find any way to dispute it from scripture or logic such that he admits to himself at least that he has no course but to admit they are the true faith.  But then pride sets in and he refuses to public admit this and join the Catholic Church, he is a formal heretic and his salvation is at risk.  This scenario is so illogical and hypocritical I cannot image it happening but human nature being what it is I guess it is possible.

Same as above (re: 'Church')... And - which 'heretics' ARE considered to be at risk?

Formal heretics are considered lost, material heretics are possibly saved if they accept Christ as their savior and obey the Gospel practicing works of love.  They do not have to accept that the Catholic position is accurate as long as their lack of acceptance is due to ignorance or not being convinced by sufficiently persuasive arguments.  Think of it  like this - suppose for a moment, for the sake of argument that salvation IS by the Catholic formulation of salvation coming from Grace, leading to faith and works accepting the free gift together.  Now imagine a Protestant who doesn't accept the idea.  But they accept Christ as their savior and live a good life doing works of mercy (they see as fruits or results of their faith - which for the sake of this argument would be wrong).  The Catholic Church says this person too is saved.  God is not going to condemn someone because they in their short life time did not resolve a theological argument the best minds of the past 500 years could not solve or convince each other of.  Some Protestants (though not all) hold a similar view of Catholics who have faith in Christ and then add works to that faith as a loving response never intending to merit salvation.  These Protestants say that such Catholics are saved because the Faith in Christ is all that is important.  I know this is a debatable position but I think this should clear up how the RCC feels about those who fit this model.  

But according to the RCC what if you didn't 'know' in your heart that 'he' was right? Back to material heretic?  

If I understand your question right the answer is yes.  That individual who did not know in his heart that the Catholic apologist was right falls under the material heretic type but their salvation is still a very real possibility in the eyes of the Catholic Church, despite them being a heretic.  In this model material heretics can still be members of the Church, if they obey the entire message of the Gospel, even if they don't think it matches the Catholic teaching of it.  It would not be fair to condemn someone for properly obey Christ's teachings just because they never accepted the body He established to promulgate that message.  Of course the hidden meaning behind all this is that to obey the entire Gospel message in this argument means they are members of the Catholic Church whether they realize it or not.  

Not to open another can of worms but an extension of this idea is how the Catholic Church sees a possibility for salvation of those of other Faiths.  The idea is that there are those who KNOW Jesus Christ without KNOWING OF Jesus Christ.  These are people who follow the message of the Gospel without ever having heard of Jesus of Nazareth.  This mode of salvation is not a possibility in Protestantism (from what I understand) because of the focus (almost exclusively) on the role of Jesus as sacrificial lamb.  Catholics see Jesus' other roles as equally important (especially His role as shepherd) and do not limit God to requiring that we be aware of His sacrifice.  Yes, Jesus had to die for our sins but we do not have to be aware of it, necessarily.  The spirit of the law of love written in our hearts becomes a law unto ourselves to paraphrase Rom 2:14.  Their belief in Christ comes in the form of their acceptance of His message, the message of the Gospel and thus (again whether they realize it or not) following Him, become one of His sheep by following His voice.  Of course the other side of the coin is also true, for one of these people to have heard of Jesus and to have rejected Him would place them in the role of formal heretic and their salvation is suspect.

[michael_legna]

The Catholic Encyclopedia on line makes for some very interesting reading. I have also read some of vaticanII.

 I have spent a while trying to spell 'liture' and as you can see i have failed   i tried internet and a real dictionary!  So does anyone have any other writings i may like to read?

There are all sorts of good reading material to get involved in but I would always start with the scriptures.  As St. Jerome said "To be ignorant of the Gospel is to be ignorant of Christ."  Still sometimes you need some help understanding the Bible, so then i would recommend reading the early Church Fathers, beyond what you have already mentioned.  A good book is A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David W. Bercot  ISBN 1-56563-357-1  It is only one volume and makes for some interesting reading.  The whole writings of the Apostolic Fathers fills an encyclopedia of 10 volumes and is only really usable as reference material.  Then of course you have the Nicean and Anti-Nicean Fathers who fill another 20 or so volumes.  Finally there is a 5 volume set from the Eastern Church called the Philokalia which is very good, but can be very deep.  Of course if you want deep Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologae is it, and it is very thorough covering every question conceivable, if you have the time and energy to wade through it.

[sincereheart]

Sorry - don't understand the question    

Sorry - I said: "But not all Catholics think the catholic church is the Catholic Church? "

Translation:
But not all members of Catholic churches (i.e. Catholics) think the 'universal church/Body of Christ' (i.e. catholic church) is the Catholic Church (i.e. the RCC, etc.).


I know this is a debatable position but I think this should clear up how the RCC feels about those who fit this model.

Thanks! I'm really not looking to debate the points of Catholicism in here. Just to understand some of the things I read that totally confuse me.   I appreciate you and ebia taking the time to explain! Some of the things I read I will never agree with and some I read just plain confooze me  

It would not be fair to condemn someone for properly obey Christ's teachings just because they never accepted the body He established to promulgate that message.  Of course the hidden meaning behind all this is that to obey the entire Gospel message in this argument means they are members of the Catholic Church whether they realize it or not.

Kind of a Catch-22?  

[michael_legna]

Sorry - don't understand the question    

Sorry - I said: "But not all Catholics think the catholic church is the Catholic Church? "

Translation:
But not all members of Catholic churches (i.e. Catholics) think the 'universal church/Body of Christ' (i.e. catholic church) is the Catholic Church (i.e. the RCC, etc.).

If I understand your question correctly I would have to say no.  Not all Catholics, the broad sense of the term would see the RCC as The Body of Christ.  There is a loose communion of Churches under the heading Catholic and this communion extends in ever dimminishing strength the further out you go including Orthodox and Anglican, etc.  But even the tightest circles have differences with the Roman Catholic Church on some issue, or else there would be no distinction necessary.  The RCC is by far the largest Catholic Church and so is most often meant when the term Catholic Church is used but it is not an exclusive term.

In addition I cannot speak for what individual believers hold to be true, I can only try to relate the doctrine as I know it.  It is entirely possible that some Roman Catholics do not hold that the RCC is the one, true body of Christ.  However to hold that opinion is to be in contradiction of the teachings of the RCC.

I know this is a debatable position but I think this should clear up how the RCC feels about those who fit this model.

Thanks! I'm really not looking to debate the points of Catholicism in here. Just to understand some of the things I read that totally confuse me.   I appreciate you and ebia taking the time to explain! Some of the things I read I will never agree with and some I read just plain confooze me  

I understand you are not looking to debate these issues and I am not trying to force one.  I hope I am answering your questions.

It would not be fair to condemn someone for properly obey Christ's teachings just because they never accepted the body He established to promulgate that message.  Of course the hidden meaning behind all this is that to obey the entire Gospel message in this argument means they are members of the Catholic Church whether they realize it or not.

Kind of a Catch-22?  

Yeah sort of, but not really a catch because it doesn't force the person into a choice between two options.  It is only a revelation, after the fact, of how the choice.

[Heidi]

Isn't heresy simply persistently preaching messages that are't scriptural?

[Petro]

Heretics, can not recognize heresy.  

When traditions of men usurp biblical teaching, that is heresy...


Blessings,

Petro

[michael_legna]

Isn't heresy simply persistently preaching messages that are't scriptural?

That definition reveals a hidden assumption and bias that the scriptures are the only source of orthodoxy.

The proper not biased definition of heresy is:

any opinions or doctrines at variance with the official or orthodox position

Thus if one believes that the Church and Tradition also are sources of orthodoxy then heresy consists of being at variance with them as well.

Finally we need to point out that heresy implies a choice

The english word Heresy comes from a Greek word signifying (1) a choice, (2) the opinion chosen, and (3) the
sect holding the opinion. In the Acts of the Apostles (5:17; 15:5; 24:5, 14;26:5) it denotes a sect, without reference to its character. Elsewhere,however, in the New Testament it has a different meaning attached to it. Paul ranks "heresies" with crimes and seditions (Gal. 5:20). This word also denotes
divisions or schisms in the church (1 Cor. 11:19). In Titus 3:10 a "heretical person" is one who follows his own self-willed "questions," and who is to be avoided. Heresies thus came to signify self-chosen doctrines not emanating from
God (2 Pet. 2:1).

If you do not accept the concept of freewill then there can be no heretics.  Of course since the Scriptures make reference to them there must be freewill.

[Heidi]

When discerning what is scriptural and what is not, it must be remembered that all of scripture has to agree. If we think we understand it then see something in scripture that seems to contradict it, then we have not understood scripture correctly.

[Petro]

poste by michael at reply #51
If you do not accept the concept of freewill then there can be no heretics.  Of course since the Scriptures make reference to them there must be freewill.

michael,

Your statement above is false.

Because you have the misconception that your church and her doctrines and traditions are teachings even commandments of God to be observed as the truth, under the penalty of anathema and excommunication for those who will not adhere.

If the faithful, excersized freewill (which they do today, and your church does nothing to correct them, well I take it back, since recently they have making an attempt to clean house at the top, however I was thinking frst of the stance of abortion) they would disregard the churches teachings and they do today, supporting pro abortion politicians, which with the help of these who think as hey do, get elect year after year, because they are of like monds.

Heresy begins in the church in the minds of those in authority, who then teach it contrery to scripture.

It begns not only as a usurption of the truth, but actually replaces the truth, based on traditions not what Gods Word teaches.

This is the reason why you have people believing all sorts of false teachings..called heresy..

Jesus said;   "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."  Maqt 15:9


Blessings,

Petro

[michael_legna]

poste by michael at reply #51
If you do not accept the concept of freewill then there can be no heretics.  Of course since the Scriptures make reference to them there must be freewill.

michael,

Your statement above is false.

Because you have the misconception that your church and her doctrines and traditions are teachings even commandments of God to be observed as the truth, under the penalty of anathema and excommunication for those who will not adhere.

I think you missed my point.  My point is that you cannot have heretics if you do not have free will.  It had nothing to do with whether the Church identified them and punished them.  If man doesn't have freewill he cannot be a heretic because it is a choice.  That was all I was saying.

If the faithful, excersized freewill (which they do today, and your church does nothing to correct them, well I take it back, since recently they have making an attempt to clean house at the top, however I was thinking frst of the stance of abortion) they would disregard the churches teachings and they do today, supporting pro abortion politicians, which with the help of these who think as hey do, get elect year after year, because they are of like monds.

Catholics are free to support any candidate they see fit.  They are to choose them based on how well that candidate fits with their understanding of a proper moral approach to living.  I am dead set against abortion and the death penalty, but I could support someone who was pro abortion if they were on the wrong side of other moral issues, such as aid to the poor, nuclear war etc.  The problem is all of our candidates are flawed in some way and we have so few to choose from that we are forced to pick and choose the good with the bad in each one.  I would love to find a republican candidate who opposed abortion and cared for the poor in this country, or a democrat who cared for social programs and would come out against abortion.  Until I do I am forced to be selective in what I find abhorant or else not vote.

Heresy begins in the church in the minds of those in authority, who then teach it contrery to scripture.

It begns not only as a usurption of the truth, but actually replaces the truth, based on traditions not what Gods Word teaches.

This is the reason why you have people believing all sorts of false teachings..called heresy..

Jesus said;   "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."  Maqt 15:9

Yes that is how some heresies begin, some theologian high up begins teaching something contrary to the Oxthodox teachings of the Church and once identified a debate begins and the losing side is declared a heretic and they are forced to go off on their own and form a new Church.  

But not all Tradition is heretical.  The Tradition used to select the Canon of the New Testament was not heretical.  The Traditions Paul refers to in 2 Thes 2:15 were not heretical.

15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

None of the Catholic Tradition is contrary to scripture so I claim it too is not heretical.  Traditions in one sense are the words of men but in one sense so is the writings of the Bible.  But in another sense Traditions are the Word of God just as the writings of the Bible are the Word of God.  Tradition does not try to replace the Word of God, it is the Word of God, because based on the protections promised to the Church in Matthew 16 we know the Church cannot error on matters of doctrine.

[Symphony]

The formation of the RCC in the 4th century is a major, if not the major, defining testimony to the authenticity of the Gospel narrative.

The testimony is in the name of an organization, or a "church", known as the RCC--and has been known as that generally since that time, for seventeen centuries.

It is a "testimony" becuase it follows the manner of earthly human behavior to the very letter, human behavior being what it is.

Attach significance to human conduct of any kind, and immediately you attract attention and, therefore, immediately, the question of ownership, jurisdiction and, "property rights".

The significance of the human "conduct" as recorded in the Gospels is of such a sort--that is, human resurrection from the dead--that by it's very definition it would naturally attract attention and "ownership" of the first order, by virtual default.  Like salesmen running to a hot new gizmo to sell on the open market, it would be irresistable.  The fact that this in fact is what happened, is a testimony to the Gospel narrative itself.  It must be true, why else the ownership claim of the very first order?

If the Gospel narrative could at all be shown to be false, this entire "property rights" issue, would be meaningless.  Obviously, no one is going to fight over a property that would then have no inherrent value--that is, the "gospel message".


It only makes sense then there would be an ongoing ownership "battle" for the rights to the gospel message--as this thread demonstrates:  "Heretics".  And it would not be any great surprise if that ownership were nothing but simply of the earth, carnal, self-interested sort.  After all, this is what our Creator came to save us from--ourselves.

If it hadn't been the RCC who claimed "ownership" of the Church, then it would have been some other group, or organization.

The moral to the story is, there had to be someone who was going to claim jurisdiction, as long as the Lord tarries.  The "property"--that is, the Good News--is too wonderful, too beautiful, to go unnoticed.  It only makes sense that there would be earthly claims--jurisdictional claims--made to that property.

Your theory might hold some water if it wasn't based on incorrect history.  All that happened in the 4th century was the addition of the name Roman to the Catholic Church to indicated it had been accepted as the official religion of the state.  All unbiased and secular historians and most reputable Protestant historians recognize the RCC as being able to trace its history all the way back through the Bishops of Rome to the Apostle Peter.   Peter was established as the leader of Christ's Church on earth by Christ Himself.  So we are not attaching any significance to human "conduct" but instead attaching significance to the conduct of Jesus.

Hi, Michael_Legna.  I'm resurrecting this from a month ago.

It's human nature to immediately capitalize on anything of value.  That is what we do, in any number of ways.

Okay, if you want to move the initiation date all the way back to Peter, instead of just to the 4th Century.  But your sentence there does confirm it:  ...to indicate it had been accepted as the official religion of the state.   That is, at least there in the fourth century, we do have a very definite declaration there of a very distinct ownership--i.e., "the official religion of the state".  That's about as declaratory as one could make it, I think, here on earth, as to jurisdicition?

And, as an aside, wouldn't that be the fundamental argument of the RCC--jurisdiction?

And then in this case, we're simply moving it back all the way to Peter?

But still, if it hadn't been the RCC, and then before it, the "Catholic" church of Peter, wouldn't it just make sense, humanly speaking, that some group, somewhere, would latch on immediately to that declaration of Jesus, "...upon this Rock I will build my Church...", and then claim it as their own?

I mean, what the Catholics have done--wouldn't that just be predictable, human behaviour?

And if any group would do that--or, basically, the first group that got there first, like school kids running to a chow line, would it be any great surprise if it took on a jurisdictional color, and therefore, an ownership one?

And if that were no surprise, then if it didnt' have the name of Catholic, and then RCC, it would still have a name that would still represent, in the final analysis, still the same basic argument, that man is always seeking to claim and make his own, whatever there is, of value out there(whether tangible, or intangible)?

And if that is true, what original claim would any of us have  to that declaration that Jesus makes regarding Peter?

[michael_legna]

Hi, Michael_Legna.  I'm resurrecting this from a month ago.

Okay, if you want to move the initiation date all the way back to Peter, instead of just to the 4th Century.  But your sentence there does confirm it:  ...to indicate it had been accepted as the official religion of the state.   That is, at least there in the fourth century, we do have a very definite declaration there of a very distinct ownership--i.e., "the official religion of the state".  That's about as declaratory as one could make it, I think, here on earth, as to jurisdicition?

No jurisdiction is not being discussed here.  Christianity (the Catholic Church) was the official state religion in the same way that Microsoft is the official software of the NFL.  That does not mean that the NFL has jurisdiction over Microsoft or the other way around even.  It merely means that within the NFL no software will be allowed other than Microsoft.  In the Roman Empire it meant that no religion (such as rule worship) would be allowed.  This was entirely a good thing.  

And, as an aside, wouldn't that be the fundamental argument of the RCC--jurisdiction?

Not as an aside but directly, yes the whole point to Christ establishing His Church on earth was to lead and that implies jurisdiction.

And then in this case, we're simply moving it back all the way to Peter?

Yes Peter was made the rock the Church was to be built on (Mt 16:18), told to strengthen the others (Lk 22:32) feed His sheep (Jn 21:17)

But still, if it hadn't been the RCC, and then before it, the "Catholic" church of Peter, wouldn't it just make sense, humanly speaking, that some group, somewhere, would latch on immediately to that declaration of Jesus, "...upon this Rock I will build my Church...", and then claim it as their own?

I mean, what the Catholics have done--wouldn't that just be predictable, human behaviour?

And if any group would do that--or, basically, the first group that got there first, like school kids running to a chow line, would it be any great surprise if it took on a jurisdictional color, and therefore, an ownership one?

And if that were no surprise, then if it didnt' have the name of Catholic, and then RCC, it would still have a name that would still represent, in the final analysis, still the same basic argument, that man is always seeking to claim and make his own, whatever there is, of value out there(whether tangible, or intangible)?

But just because human nature would have arrived at the same conclusion does not prove that God did not do it that way.

And if that is true, what original claim would any of us have  to that declaration that Jesus makes regarding Peter?

I agree that the claim that any of us would have to that original declaration Jesus made regarding Peter would have to be supported.  That group would have to show a continual link of succession from Peter through his successor, etc.  Or it is possible there might be some other proof, but only one Church can offer even the one I suggest.  All throughout history until the recent 500 years when the term Church was used it meant only one thing - the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church (which is in very close communion).  The largest by far group within these two bodies is the Roman Catholic Church and it is also the one with the most direct link to Peter.

So yes human nature being what it is there was bound to be at least one group to claim this jurisdiction.  Maybe in history there were others but their claims could not be supported I don't know I am not an expert in history.  I am just glad the the true claimant survived.  But then we knew it would because Christ promised it would prevail even against the gates of hell.

[Symphony]

But just because human nature would have arrived at the same conclusion does not prove that God did not do it that way.


But doesn't the fact that human nature would have arrived at it that way make the entire unfolding then at least suspect--i.e., "manmade", and...

even if that didn't, would that still necessarily prove then that God did indeed do it that way?



Surely with Paul we know that he was literally "handpicked"?
As were the disciples, and Peter, before Paul.

And with Peter, he was certainly at least "honored"(if nothing else, by Jesus' prediction that he would deny Him, yet Jesus' had prayed for Him, and forgiven Him...), tho it is at least arguable whether Jesus was indeed referring to Peter as that Rock and, even if He were, what exactly He meant by that(i.e, did He in fact mean a development of the concept of a "pope", and men we call "padre" or "father"...etc., all out of that one single pronouncement...??).

[michael_legna]

But just because human nature would have arrived at the same conclusion does not prove that God did not do it that way.


But doesn't the fact that human nature would have arrived at it that way make the entire unfolding then at least suspect--i.e., "manmade", and...

Yes I have nothing against someone who wants to be suspect of the idea.  Only against those who reject things out of hand without researching or thinking them through.  I would not accept it just because the Church said so, if there were not independent documentation of the succession starting immediately from Peter.

even if that didn't, would that still necessarily prove then that God did indeed do it that way?

Right again, if I did not see evidence of the plan for a visible Church to continue through succession of laying on of hands in scripture, and in the teachings of the earliest Church Fathers I wouldn't accept it either.  

Even if I only saw a little evidence and not uniformity of the idea I would doubt.  But the reality of the situation is that all of the Church Fathers accepted the idea and there is no clear statement refuting it in any of their works.  Think of it this way, if some human through their nature decided to grab power as it were and declare the Church to be something it wasn't intended to be there would have been an out cry by those true Christians of the time against this move.  No where in any of the writings of the early Church Fathers is there found anything like that.  It is conspicuous by its abscence.

Surely with Paul we know that he was literally "handpicked"?
As were the disciples, and Peter, before Paul.

But it doesn't stop there Matthias was also hand picked, by the other Apostles but only as they were led by the Holy Spirit.  

Do you realize that there are 18 Apostles mentioned in the New Testament?

Peter, Andrew, James the son of Zebedee, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus; 4Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot – Mt 10:2

Matthias - Acts 1:26

Paul and Barnabas - Acts 14:14

Andronicus and Junia - Rom 16:7

Christ - Heb 3:1

plus a few other references that hint at others who might be considered Apostles.

And with Peter, he was certainly at least "honored"(if nothing else, by Jesus' prediction that he would deny Him, yet Jesus' had prayed for Him, and forgiven Him...), tho it is at least arguable whether Jesus was indeed referring to Peter as that Rock and, even if He were, what exactly He meant by that(i.e, did He in fact mean a development of the concept of a "pope", and men we call "padre" or "father"...etc., all out of that one single pronouncement...??).

I don't doubt that the administrative form of the Church has changed, but remember the Church was given power to bind and loose.  So as the world changed and the needs of the Church to fulfill the ministry given it changed, it was able to grow and adapt.  That is one of the advantages of a viable organism like a Church over a static text like the scriptures.  Doctrine cannot change but how we serve and carry out the ministry does.  There is even evidence of this change carried out by the Church in New Testament times.  The Church saw a need that was not being fulfilled and decided to establish deacons to fill it.  This office was unknown and complete outside of scripture yet the Church felt it had the authority to do this.

[Symphony]

Think of it this way, if some human through their nature decided to grab power as it were and declare the Church to be something it wasn't intended to be there would have been an out cry by those true Christians of the time against this move

But this is sort of the point.  This is the predictable "human nature" I was alluding to--a "power grab".   An all-encompassing grab--so that any outcry is successfully sanitized or otherwise absorbed.  Too, there were doctrinal issues unsettled or unclear for any convert, regardless of your stripe or sympathies.  Doubtless there are threads of continuity genuine and authentically "Christian"--from Peter and the others onward.  But something Jesus and the Holy Spirit is doing, and not some necessarily monolith or brotherhood of man(although Christians are brothers)?  What you are describing provides excuse for such as the Crusades--not much better than the "infidel" they were seeking to crush?  Ill-sought ambitions, vain-glory, etc.?

So as the world changed and the needs of the Church to fulfill the ministry given it changed, it was able to grow and adapt.  That is one of the advantages of a viable organism like a Church over a static text like the scriptures.  Doctrine cannot change but how we serve and carry out the ministry does.

Thus suggesting the Church as evolving?  

That is one of the advantages of a viable organism like a Church over a static text like the scriptures.  

This just emphasizes the Church.  Which is understandable--very human, and is my point.  There are doctrines of the Church in the NT, but not nearly to this emphasis.

Your emphasis on the Church, such as above, implies a justification outside of NT reference.  In other words, this is my contention, that the Catholic argument is one of very human terms:  It brings with it that human tendency to own and orchestrate whatever is of value, attaching control as soon as possible--thus the apparent Catholic determination to build an entire hierarchy, or doctrine, etc., on even just a simple allusion that Jesus makes about "the Rock", and that that might have been referring to Peter(is it even totally clear that that is in fact what Jesus was referring to?), and even if it were, would that necessarily justify an entire worldly hierarchy built on that one allusion, especialy when such is not even half-way clearly laid out by Jesus(and which such omission certainly must be deliberate, on Jesus' terms), in practical worldly terms, and also expecially in light of that very human tendency to simply go ahead and do it that way anyhow?

In short, without NT scripture to substantially support it, it appears that you have just very human, human beings attaching their own very predictable tendency or "agenda", to refashion into their(our) own likeness, or his own control, what maybe the Holy Spirit, or Jesus, is trying to do--or wanting to do?

Not that Jesus isn't working through this too, of course.  Arguablly, no matter what we did to His Gospel, or how we perverted it--if He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life--then whatever we attempt against HIs Kingdom, in the final analysis, will only end up working for His good?

So in the final case it won't matter anyway.    All things work together for good to them that love the Lord.