Heretics?

[Symphony]

   

[michael_legna]

How do you evangelize those who do not accept the scriptures as the inerrant Word of God if you cannot appeal to the authority of the Church?  

I don't agree with much of what Symphony is saying, but I also don't see how this helps.  If someone doesn't accept the scriptures as being accurate, why would they accept the church as having any authority?  Surely if you're starting from scratch then they won't have already accepted either; I can't see why a hindu (say) would accept the authority of the church but not the bible.  

I understand the issue and agree with it on a theoretical level.  But for some reason on a practical level mankind wants to belong.  They see a group of people for whom a belief system works and they are willing to apply it.  You give the same group a dry text and they refuse the message.  The other advantage a Church with authority has is it can be questioned to clear up misunderstandings, which is not possible to do with a text.

I don't have a good answer for you, I just know that throughout history evangelization was done without reference to the authority of scripture as the inerrant word of God.  This is obvious in the first 350 years of Christianity as the canon had not even been established, so the message of the Gospel had to be taken on Church authority.  Then even in the remaining 1200 years before the reformation most who were converted were unable to read an write even there own languages.  

A point often missed when discussing the availability of the Bible to the masses is that it was only in recent times (this last century) that illiteracy rates dropped below 50%, so an inerrant text had no appeal since they would have to rely on those who preached the message anyway.  Therefore trust in the Church was as, if not more, important to those being evangelized as the accuracy of the scriptures.

[michael_legna]

Do you just hope the message makes good sense to those who hear it?

To the ordinary, unlearned mind I think that is the definite priority.  A child can understand the gospel; he isn't concerned about the inerrancy??   To the learned, in probably most cases, they aren't going to listen anyway--"If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead?"  (Luke 16:31)?

I am not sure a child can understand the Gospel, at least not until a certain level of maturity exists, but then maybe we are thinking of children differently.  The verse you quote is less about the level of learning then of the hardening of those peoples hearts.

I thot voodoo was a direct, resulting mixture of pagan and catholic influence?

I don’t doubt that there was an influence on the pagans by the preaching of the Catholic missionaries that may have played a role in the development of some aspects of voodoo, but voodoo is not Catholicism, at most it is evidence of the failed attempts to reach a small portion of the community.

The economic situation also has nothing to do with the Churches message.  

Hmm.  I think economics is uniquely tied in--by the Church's "ommission" of it?  An article in U.S. News recently raised the interesting point, that one reason European Jews may have grown to be so hated was b/c of the Christians ban on usury, which the Jew didn't have(in trading with the "ghuyim"), and thus filled the resulting "vacuum"; thus Jews freely advanced in the banking and finance industries("Rothschilds", Roosevelts, etc.)?

Actually this debate has raged in the Catholic Church for some time as often the Jesuit missionaries wanted to get involved in the economic situation of their missionary parishes to right the wrongs inflicted on the people by the land owners/slum lords and the corrupt politicians.  The Vatican would always step in and stop them as it almost always meant siding with the communist rebels who were looking to overthrow the current regime.  You statement on Jews and usury is to jumbled grammatically for me to be certain of what you point is, if you feel it is significant please restate it.

Not to mention you ignore the first 1500 years of the Church’s ministry in Europe.  How did all the Christianization of the Pagans occur then if you cannot reach someone who does not accept the scriptures as the inerrant Word of God?

Well, look at the "Christianization" of, say, France.  Now there is a, by far, predominantly RCC country--right?  except perhaps for the recent growth of the guest workers there, which are Moslem?  But just look at France.  Their "mardi gras", and the wholesale infidelity, to each other, etc.  And the gay community there now.  And the bloody Revolution in 1792.  And their heavy demise into wholesale socialism.  And their traitor "Vichy" government, with the Nazis, of WWII? Yikes.  

I mean the Luthren or "reformed" or "rebel" Germany was perhaps no better.  But really, I mean is the RCC really that much of a moral icon??  

What you are addressing is the life of sin of those who had the Gospel preached to them it does not have any bearing on whether the message was effectively preached to them or even if they accepted or what the basis of that acceptance was.

I'm not totally convinced there ever was much real "Christianization" going on; just more and more "worldliness", under the pretense or labels of various "religous" persuasions?   Sure, there are tons of "crosses" everywhere emblazoned, on every steeple.

But the message of the Gospel was preached and they heard about Christ, and it was not through a referral to a text which was claimed to be inerrant, it was based on the authority of the Church and its history.

But then your appeal to a Church as the authority is a hair's breadth then from "enforcement"--which is sorta my point, because you get on that slippery slope then to the Inquisition.  I might appeal to you that scripture is "inerrant", and that the story I'm telling you is "true"; I'm not sure I can "force" you, by the authority of the, or any, "Church", to accept it, which I think is the abyss the RCC slid into??

I agree it is a slippery slope (not that all slippery slopes are bad).  The instruction in the scriptures to submit to those who have responsibility for our souls can easily be abused by unscrupulous individuals and we must be always wary of that but at the same time it does not eliminate the requirement on us to obey what our leaders say (not necessarily what they do).  As for the Church forcing those it is evangelizing to become Christians I would agree that is a bad thing, though I don’t think that was the mechanism at work as much as convincing people to join (human nature has made us social animals and joiners by nature) a successful and reasonable assembly who have already accepted and even died for a serious but strange set of religious beliefs, which the incarnation and death and resurrection appear as to a pagan.

[Symphony]

 This is obvious in the first 350 years of Christianity as the canon had not even been established, so the message of the Gospel had to be taken on Church authority

But for the first 350 years could you really call it a literal church, with a capital "C"??   It was a growing "reality", that someone had risen from the dead, a story circulating based certainly on parchments, and documents, and oral report, and much martyrdom(Sebastian? etc.).  Being that it came literally "from the Jews", it came with an automatic, tho perhaps unspoken, incentive to authenticate--in view, if nothing else, of the strict scribal tradition of "the scribes and Pharisees".  Even Jeremiah, some 500 years earlier, had his own "scribe"(Baruch, whose signet ring they have found).  The Jewish tradition virtually insured an incentive to accurate records, in any new "twist", or development, in the Hebrew narrative--tho it might be so "contradictory", as certainly this new Jesus twist, turned out to be, for them.   But as a literal "Church", wasn't it just too fragmented, and dispersed, to have much form to it?  Therefore newcomers were relying basically on two things:  The unbelievability of it all, like a fairytale(God offering His Son, His Son rising from the dead) and, 2) the authentication process already entrenched in place, thanks to the scribal profession, as it was??

Perhaps the Christian's response today, or my response today, is, it's pretty much the same.  I rely upon the "context" in totality of where such a report is coming from, then I look at the story itself.  Certainly, I'll agree readily, that in a way, the Church, or that is, the RCC, could be construed simply as continuing the tradition so already firmly in place by the Hebrews with their torah, except for this 300 or 400 year hiatus, in their scribal tradition.  From that, obviously, came the Councils, deciding on the "Canon".  But ultimately, even those councils, were made up of men selected basically for their "belief", in what the story was suggesting.  

You statement on Jews and usury is to jumbled grammatically for me to be certain of what you point is, if you feel it is significant please restate it.

Yes; I see the Church, or that is, most any worldly, Christian church, as uniquely, for better or for worse, entertwined with any particular economy(that's why I'm seeing that most churches, regardless of stripe, are being "absorbed"--that is, they are staying the "same" on the outside, but inside they are gradually changing everything, from liturgy, to doctrine--perhaps part of the "evolvement" you referred to, tho I would see it as "de"-volvement, or "devil-volvement).  So I was mentioning the Jewish tradition in Europe as indirectly influencing much of that; many of the big names, apparently, in European finance, from medieval on up to the present, were Jewish simply b/c of the Christian caveat on usury, which Jews didn't have(I think Leviticus allows loans to non-Jews--Gentiles, or the "ghuyum"(sp)?), and therefore could easily fill.  So very wealthy people in Europe tended to turn out to be Jewish(but also, a part fulfillment too, arguably, of God's blessing to Abraham...).

[Symphony]

But the message of the Gospel was preached and they heard about Christ, and it was not through a referral to a text which was claimed to be inerrant, it was based on the authority of the Church and its history.



Yes, the Gospel, in one form or another ( ), was preached.  But again, this sounds of enforcement, or the reality that in fact turned out to be true:  "... it was based on the authority of the Church and its history".     I mean, true, those things are a part, but in relevance to the story itself??   In fact, Jesus' appeal always, when it came to His authority was, simply, either based on His own identity, or, just simply, he quoted OT scripture, "It is written...".    Yes, I see where you're going, in order to lend a command authority to such RCC figures as the pope and cardinals, etc.   But my impression, again, it's one of either, on one hand, an anemic or corrupt authority, or, on the other hand, a pejorative or dictatorial--or jealous--"jurisdiction".  

As for the Church forcing those it is evangelizing to become Christians I would agree that is a bad thing, though I don’t think that was the mechanism at work as much as convincing people to join

Well, I just see that as tendency of any organization.  Unfortunately, that's how I tend to see the Church(your RCC)--as more of an organization, as perhaps some or many Protestant churches too, as organizations.  I think if your "church" becomes an organization, then it's no longer a church.  And organizations usually, or perhaps even always, ultimately adopt an enforcement measure--either that, or an "exclusive" one--they either "encourage"(hehe)others to join, or they exclude others from joining(like Free Masons).

That's why human beings coming together in what they are calling a "church", is not a light thing at all.  It's not a club.  Indeed, it comes with particular risks.  It's really a wholesale admition, that we're at war.  Really, it's not a place in which to find security--fellowship, encouragement, yes.   It's really just a place where you give, more that you "get".  I don't see the RCC, or many others as necessarily fulfilling this, in the sense Jesus' example seemed to set for us.  I think Jesus' example is that we have revitalization through him, but that it comes with a cost.  It's not about finding security, in a social setting.  It's an admission that I'm a sinner, deserving of death, thankful for forgiveness, and ready acceptance of the cost...

I think maybe the RCC and others' emphasis is on the security and integrity of the organization...

[michael_legna]

 This is obvious in the first 350 years of Christianity as the canon had not even been established, so the message of the Gospel had to be taken on Church authority

But for the first 350 years could you really call it a literal church, with a capital "C"??   It was a growing "reality", that someone had risen from the dead, a story circulating based certainly on parchments, and documents, and oral report, and much martyrdom(Sebastian? etc.).  

I think it was a Church with a capital C.  I mean in the first 350 years there had already been 35 Bishops of Rome, and 28 Bishops in Constantinople and a similar number of Bishops in Alexandria.  The Church had already built the first Basilica of St Peter in Rome.  Constantine had already declared that Christianity was to be tolerated and in 30 more years Theodosius would declare it the official state religion.  And Eusebius of Caesarea considered it enough of a Church to have written the "Ecclesiastical History”.   Think of it this way at 350 years old the Church was as old as most Protestant or non-denominational churches are today, and probably had more members than most of them as well.

I think it was more than just a growing reality.

But ultimately, even those councils, were made up of men selected basically for their "belief", in what the story was suggesting.  

Yes, but it is just that willingness to believe that is convincing to the average man.  If you had a text you declared was inerrant and nobody but you believed it was, what is the chance you think you would have of effectively evangelizing anyone else to join in that belief?  For better or worse man’s nature is to be convinced by numbers and history.

Yes; I see the Church, or that is, most any worldly, Christian church, as uniquely, for better or for worse, entertwined with any particular economy(that's why I'm seeing that most churches, regardless of stripe, are being "absorbed"--that is, they are staying the "same" on the outside, but inside they are gradually changing everything, from liturgy, to doctrine--perhaps part of the "evolvement" you referred to, tho I would see it as "de"-volvement, or "devil-volvement).  

Yes if the Church was not promised the protection of the Holy Spirit by Jesus I see that as a real possibility.  That is why the lack of any change to even a single point of doctrine in the Catholic Church throughout its history is so amazing.

So I was mentioning the Jewish tradition in Europe as indirectly influencing much of that; many of the big names, apparently, in European finance, from medieval on up to the present, were Jewish simply b/c of the Christian caveat on usury, which Jews didn't have(I think Leviticus allows loans to non-Jews--Gentiles, or the "ghuyum"(sp)?), and therefore could easily fill.  So very wealthy people in Europe tended to turn out to be Jewish(but also, a part fulfillment too, arguably, of God's blessing to Abraham...).

But what does this have to do with the Church.  If these individuals were claiming to be Jews during this time they certainly weren’t members of the Church as the animosity between them during this period was immense.  Or were you just using this as an example of human nature?  Because I admit that human nature could have done many things to the Church if it had been formed any other way than to have been established by Christ and promised His protection.  But the possibility of these things happening is a far cry from showing them to have occurred in the Church.

[Symphony]

From earlier:
 
--"If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead?"  (Luke 16:31)?

The verse you quote is less about the level of learning then of the hardening of those peoples hearts

Perhaps.  But aren't those two more directly proportional-- typically the greater the learning, the greater the disbelief, the more cynical one becomes?

I think it was a Church with a capital C.  I mean in the first 350 years there had already been 35 Bishops of Rome, and 28 Bishops in Constantinople and a similar number of Bishops in Alexandria.  The Church had already built the first Basilica of St Peter in Rome.  Constantine had already declared that Christianity was to be tolerated and in 30 more years Theodosius would declare it the official state religion.  And Eusebius of Caesarea considered it enough of a Church to have written the "Ecclesiastical History”.  Think of it this way at 350 years old the Church was as old as most Protestant or non-denominational churches are today, and probably had more members than most of them as well.


Yes, these are some very good points...

I think it was more than just a growing reality.

...Well, it was becoming a very tangible reality.  A very formal, integrated tangible reality.  The RCC took Jewish history/heritage, with what Jesus did, and embellished it all beyond measure, immensely.

Yes, but it is just that willingness to believe that is convincing to the average man.

Yes.  To me that's the crux of it--not really the inerrancy, which is integral, but secondary; nor the Church, which is a result, not a cause?

Yes if the Church was not promised the protection of the Holy Spirit by Jesus I see that as a real possibility.

But His promises are to us as individuals, not to us as a formal "Church"--or to "it", the Church.

But what does this have to do with the Church.  If these individuals were claiming to be Jews during this time they certainly weren’t members of the Church as the animosity between them during this period was immense.  Or were you just using this as an example of human nature?  Because I admit that human nature could have done many things to the Church if it had been formed any other way than to have been established by Christ and promised His protection.  But the possibility of these things happening is a far cry from showing them to have occurred in the Church.


They needn't have occurred in the Church--at least as concerns the Jewish accommodation of the European banking industries.  The Church would have been aggressively and dramatically enmeshed in the evolving economies, tho in contrast to, and not in concert with, the secular/and/or Jewish influences there.   As I recall, an ongoing friction between the Church and the various magistrates of any given jurisdiction.

My ultimate point is that the Church is a manmade institution bringing with it all the baggage of the prior pagan religions, absorbing then this new twist to the Jewish song and dance--Jesus Christ--and applying to this new twist the same old baggage but with all the bells and whistles in just the right places.  Or, i.e., arguablly, the "skeleton" of the RCC existed long before Jesus, and merely absorbed it, or what He taught, into its already existing agenda, which essentially is just the nature of man, as I said earlier, we naturally assume "ownership" of all that we see and hear, if we are the first one's there.

How could it have been any different?  It wouldn't have been any different.  Becuase this is just what men do.  But we make it into something worse, not better--or, at least, it becomes "manmade".  Who wants a "manmade" orange, to eat?  Just the sound of it turns your stomach.   We can't make our own orange--or even our own orange jello.  It has to be concocted in a laboratory, and then it says "artificially flavored".  


The "Church" to me, which is really "the church", is as He dictates, indirectly, any place on earth, whereever there is someone who believes--there being an automatic or natural bond between us regardless of distance.  But it's not mystical, like the Masons, perhaps, and it's not defined literally, or that is, tangibly, necessarily--tho "works" are indeed important and are the wonderful point of like James, or Titus--and Jesus, very much so.

One aspect of the argument we're having I believe, is similar to the Federalist argument over the U.S. Constitution--centralized or decentralized goverment, and I think was how A. Hamilton and Aaron Burr wound up pacing off over.  

For me the typical Catholic, I suppose, is looking for a tangible, physical manisfestation, in human form, even tho Jesus left, and therefore has contrived an elaborate argument as to why that form can be in a pope and vicars, or other individuals.  It essentially bears the imprints of all the pagan cultures rampant at that time and before, down to today--mithraism, the human tendency to female worship, etc.

[michael_legna]

Perhaps.  But aren't those two more directly proportional-- typically the greater the learning, the greater the disbelief, the more cynical one becomes?

Typically yes, but not necessarily.  This is the problem I think with your whole argument.  It is not enough to prove something by showing there exists a sufficient condition, but it must be also be shown that there exists a necessary condition.  Sufficient conditions show that it is possible, necessary conditions require or prove that it did in fact happen that way.  That it is possible should lead one to be careful, but should not lead them to abandon the idea, which is what you have done in regards to the idea of a central Church if I understand you correctly.

I think it was more than just a growing reality.

...Well, it was becoming a very tangible reality.  A very formal, integrated tangible reality.  The RCC took Jewish history/heritage, with what Jesus did, and embellished it all beyond measure, immensely.

I am not sure I follow you on this.  What specifically are you referring to?  

Yes, but it is just that willingness to believe that is convincing to the average man.

Yes.  To me that's the crux of it--not really the inerrancy, which is integral, but secondary; nor the Church, which is a result, not a cause?

But that willingness to believe is evidenced only in the Church not in the scriptures.  So one cannot rely on just the scriptures to reach those who are not Christians.

Yes if the Church was not promised the protection of the Holy Spirit by Jesus I see that as a real possibility.

But His promises are to us as individuals, not to us as a formal "Church"--or to "it", the Church.

No, I disagree with you there the verses Protestants use to support this idea (when viewed in detail) always refer to the Church, or the leaders of the Church at that time, the Apostles.  The protection from error is never promised to the individual members of the Church.

My ultimate point is that the Church is a manmade institution bringing with it all the baggage of the prior pagan religions, absorbing then this new twist to the Jewish song and dance--Jesus Christ--and applying to this new twist the same old baggage but with all the bells and whistles in just the right places.  Or, i.e., arguablly, the "skeleton" of the RCC existed long before Jesus, and merely absorbed it, or what He taught, into its already existing agenda, which essentially is just the nature of man, as I said earlier, we naturally assume "ownership" of all that we see and hear, if we are the first one's there.

I agree that is how it could have happened but that does not mean it did happen that way.  You never really offer proof that it did other than as follows in your next paragraph seeming to be content that if it could happen this way it did.  That is not good enough for me when I see so much in scripture that points to a Church exactly as it exists today, hierarchy and all.

How could it have been any different?  It wouldn't have been any different.  Becuase this is just what men do.  But we make it into something worse, not better--or, at least, it becomes "manmade".  

Jesus could have made it different if He wanted to.  He is all powerful and when He says he is building a Church and it shall prevail against all attacks, even the gates of hell and that it shall have a hierarchy and be a place to go to in order to resolve disagreements between us and that we should submit to it I expect it to happen.    Wouldn’t it look just like what you claim would evolve naturally from man’s efforts?  If not how would this Church look different?  Where does this Church, He built, exist such that it is visible enough that we can do as He instructed?

The "Church" to me, which is really "the church", is as He dictates, indirectly, any place on earth, whereever there is someone who believes--there being an automatic or natural bond between us regardless of distance.  But it's not mystical, like the Masons, perhaps, and it's not defined literally, or that is, tangibly, necessarily--tho "works" are indeed important and are the wonderful point of like James, or Titus--and Jesus, very much so.

Without it being a physically identifiable entity on earth how do we go to it to resolve differences between Christians as we are instructed to?

One aspect of the argument we're having I believe, is similar to the Federalist argument over the U.S. Constitution--centralized or decentralized goverment, and I think was how A. Hamilton and Aaron Burr wound up pacing off over.  

I definitely would side with centralized government.  It is the only way to ensure consistency and without consistency you cannot have truth.

For me the typical Catholic, I suppose, is looking for a tangible, physical manisfestation, in human form, even tho Jesus left, and therefore has contrived an elaborate argument as to why that form can be in a pope and vicars, or other individuals.  

I agree but only because the scriptures tells us that is how the Church is to function.

It essentially bears the imprints of all the pagan cultures rampant at that time and before, down to today--mithraism, the human tendency to female worship, etc.

That is attempting to apply guilt by association. It is a fallacious form of argument.  For example - Christians everywhere pray to God, but pagans did it centuries before the Christians did, that by itself does not make it wrong.  So just because someone else did something first does not make it wrong.

[Symphony]

Typically yes, but not necessarily.  This is the problem I think with your whole argument.  It is not enough to prove something by showing there exists a sufficient condition, but it must be also be shown that there exists a necessary condition.  Sufficient conditions show that it is possible, necessary conditions require or prove that it did in fact happen that way.  That it is possible should lead one to be careful, but should not lead them to abandon the idea, which is what you have done in regards to the idea of a central Church if I understand you correctly.

Well, the "necessary condition" is that we are all corrupt human beings.  So any organization we form by definition is corrupt.  Thus a physical manifestation of God's Church here is impossible--man's Church, yes, but not God's Church.  Just because I decide collectively with dozens of other men that so and so is "infallible", does that make it so?  All of our churches are corrupt, in varying degrees.  That's why so many as they drive by never go in--just a bunch of hypocrites inside.  And they're right, much of the time.  


I am not sure I follow you on this.  What specifically are you referring to?

Christian churches picked up where the synagogues left off.  The Christian "church" has a wonderful heritage from which to grow out of, when you stop and think about it.  The rich heritage of the Hebrews, carried on, and then all of a sudden, the Christians pick up the ball and run with it.  Look at Western Civilization.



Well, the "necessary condition" is that we are all corrupt human beings.  So any organization we form by definition is corrupt.  Thus a physical manifestation of God's Church here is impossible--man's Church, yes, but not God's Church.  All of our churches are corrupt, in varying degrees.  That's why so many as they drive by never go in--just a bunch of hypocrites inside.  And they're right, much of the time.  

But that willingness to believe is evidenced only in the Church not in the scriptures.  So one cannot rely on just the scriptures to reach those who are not Christians.


You make a huge jump between those two sentences.  I agree with the first--yes, as a result of our new faith we become members of the Church "universal", the Bride of the Lamb.  I don't see, tho, how that leads others to Christ, except through the scriptural Gospel.

I'll have to come back later.

[michael_legna]

Well, the "necessary condition" is that we are all corrupt human beings.  So any organization we form by definition is corrupt.  Thus a physical manifestation of God's Church here is impossible--man's Church, yes, but not God's Church.  

Just because we are corrupt does not mean that we only do corrupt things.  Especially once we have become converted.  Then God begins to act through us and with His grace we cooperate to do pleasing things for Him.  So while we are still corrupt it is possible to do good things and thus your sufficient condition is lost.

I agree that if God did not get involved then what you say would be true.  But we know from scripture that He did get involved.  It was Christ who built the Church, not man.  It was Christ who promised it protection even from the Gates of Hell.  It was the Holy Spirit who tells us to look for this physical manifestation (that you say cannot exist) to resolve our disagreements, just as Paul did at the Council of Jerusalem.

Just because I decide collectively with dozens of other men that so and so is "infallible", does that make it so?

No but if the Holy Spirit gives you power to bind and loose and the keys tot eh kingdom, there is only one way you can exercise that authority and that is if you are protected from error in matters of doctrine.  The decision of the dozens of men is not what makes something infallible it is the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit that makes it infallible.  The same protection and guidance that was at work when the dozens of men selected which books to include in the Canon of the Bible.  If you can trust them for that why don’t you trust them to act as a Church and resolve differences as God instructed them to?

All of our churches are corrupt, in varying degrees.  That's why so many as they drive by never go in--just a bunch of hypocrites inside.  And they're right, much of the time.  

No not all of our Churches are corrupt but many are full of hypocrites.  Still you should never judge a Church on its members lives or even its leaders lives, but on the doctrine they espouse.  Christ railed against the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, but He still told the people to do as they say, if not as they do.

Christian churches picked up where the synagogues left off.  The Christian "church" has a wonderful heritage from which to grow out of, when you stop and think about it.  The rich heritage of the Hebrews, carried on, and then all of a sudden, the Christians pick up the ball and run with it.  Look at Western Civilization.

You cannot blame the Church for the fact that there are still sinners in the world.  The Church is responsible for protecting the message of the Gospel and spreading it so everyone can hear.  It cannot make them accept it.

But that willingness to believe is evidenced only in the Church not in the scriptures.  So one cannot rely on just the scriptures to reach those who are not Christians.

You make a huge jump between those two sentences.  I agree with the first--yes, as a result of our new faith we become members of the Church "universal", the Bride of the Lamb.  I don't see, tho, how that leads others to Christ, except through the scriptural Gospel.

I'll have to come back later.

My point is that people tend to be joiners.  We will join a group that we see works for others, which is what the evidence to believe of those already in the Church does.  But we are likely to join just because they claim authority, which is all we have to go on when we present the scriptures to someone who does not accept them as the Word of God.

[Symphony]

Just because we are corrupt does not mean that we only do corrupt things.  Especially once we have become converted.  Then God begins to act through us and with His grace we cooperate to do pleasing things for Him.  So while we are still corrupt it is possible to do good things and thus your sufficient condition is lost.
.

Yes, we do pleasing things for Him.  But only He knows what is and what isn't pleasing.  We only do it because it is our "...reasonable service."(Rom 12:1b).  There is no "sainthood" in doing something only He allows us to do in the first place(which begs the question as to whether there are even such things as "battlefield heroes", for instance).  We aren't saintly b/c we avail ourselves of opportunities He gives us; but we are corrupt if we don't.

If you can trust them for that why don’t you trust them to act as a Church and resolve differences as God instructed them to

But I'm not so sure that I do trust "them" for the scriptures.  After all, I only ultimately accept a given version or story, still, on according to the interface it makes with my own thoughts internally(thus, "...bearing witness.." to our inner compass...).  I trust the accuracy of a Bible or manuscript because of the dynamics of what I know goes on between humans--the "office politics", as it were, down through the ages, the context.  I don't see that I'm "trusting" these men to tell me the truth any more than I "trust" a bank in keeping any money for me.  The only reason--I repeat--the only reason a bank will keep any money for me is b/c of other dynamics going on that literally force it to(mainly, competition).  

So I'm not so sure that I see the scriptures as a result of any innate, human trustworthiness.  Therefore I don't see any "church" similarly, either--except what is based on love.  I may "submit" to a church's authority out of "love"--and perhaps only for that reason.  But I tend to see the community in which I live as "the church", and practice my "love" in that fashion, to or for the community...

Still you should never judge a Church on its members lives or even its leaders lives, but on the doctrine they espouse.

He did say that we shall know them by their fruits.

My point is that people tend to be joiners.  We will join a group that we see works for others, which is what the evidence to believe of those already in the Church does.  But we are likely to join just because they claim authority, which is all we have to go on when we present the scriptures to someone who does not accept them as the Word of God.


Well I certainly agree that someone can join regardless of substance, based on just an authority.  People will lust or thirst for authority in their lives.  Yes, in that respect we are certainly "joiners"--"sheep", for sure.

[michael_legna]

Just because we are corrupt does not mean that we only do corrupt things.  Especially once we have become converted.  Then God begins to act through us and with His grace we cooperate to do pleasing things for Him.  So while we are still corrupt it is possible to do good things and thus your sufficient condition is lost.
.

Yes, we do pleasing things for Him.  But only He knows what is and what isn't pleasing.  We only do it because it is our "...reasonable service."(Rom 12:1b).  There is no "sainthood" in doing something only He allows us to do in the first place(which begs the question as to whether there are even such things as "battlefield heroes", for instance).  We aren't saintly b/c we avail ourselves of opportunities He gives us; but we are corrupt if we don't.

No you miss the point by failing to extend the argument.  Yes if we do only that which we are required to do we are just a unworthy servants, but that does not mean we cannot be more.

Compare

Luke 17:7-10 But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink? Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not. So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

with

Luke 12:37  Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them.

See how if we only do the minimum required we are just doing our reasonable service but we can do more.  We know this is possible because the Lord will not make us sit down to meat and wait on us if we only do the reasonable service expected.  But note how the scriptures say it is possible that the Lord will be so happy with our works that He would treat us like that, making us sit down to eat while He waits on us,  so your contention that we can’t be saintly or that there are no battle field heroes appears to be wrong.

If you can trust them for that why don’t you trust them to act as a Church and resolve differences as God instructed them to

But I'm not so sure that I do trust "them" for the scriptures.  After all, I only ultimately accept a given version or story, still, on according to the interface it makes with my own thoughts internally (thus, "...bearing witness.." to our inner compass...).  I trust the accuracy of a Bible or manuscript because of the dynamics of what I know goes on between humans--the "office politics", as it were, down through the ages, the context.  I don't see that I'm "trusting" these men to tell me the truth any more than I "trust" a bank in keeping any money for me.  The only reason--I repeat--the only reason a bank will keep any money for me is b/c of other dynamics going on that literally force it to(mainly, competition).  

Wow!  Most people don’t trust organizations specifically BECAUSE of these unseen dynamics.  That is the reason no one wants to have electronic or Internet voting because they don’t trust what is going on behind the scenes and have some comfort in knowing that there is a physical paper trail of some sort.

I would be on your side of the argument if I thought all I had to reply on was the men involved.  The idea that I am relying on just their supposed good intentions not to pervert the Bible as they kept it down through the years is beyond my acceptance.  I have to believe the Holy Spirit was involved in guiding the Church or I would expect the type of additions like the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer (only far worse) would have snuck in, in far greater number and much earlier in the process.

So I'm not so sure that I see the scriptures as a result of any innate, human trustworthiness.  Therefore I don't see any "church" similarly, either--except what is based on love.  I may "submit" to a church's authority out of "love"--and perhaps only for that reason.  But I tend to see the community in which I live as "the church", and practice my "love" in that fashion, to or for the community...

If not the Holy Spirit and not the trust of men than all you have to go on is how you feel the scriptures resonate with your beliefs, or as you put it “the interface it makes with my own thoughts internally (thus, "...bearing witness.." to our inner compass...).”  This places way too much importance and confidence on our conscience for me as I have met too many people whose conscience is no longer dependable.

Still you should never judge a Church on its members lives or even its leaders lives, but on the doctrine they espouse.

He did say that we shall know them by their fruits.

He was talking about individuals not about a Church.  The Church cannot force members to adhere to its teachings or even stop them from claiming to be of the Church when they are not.  Only people have a free will and it is their fruits that we can judge.