[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
If you do not believe what the Universal Christians believe, you have removed yourself from the catholicity of Christendom (that which is believed by Christians in all places, in all times, everywhere). By removing yourself from this, you have stepped into the shoes of Adam, choosing to believe that God really does what Satan talks about in Gen 3:4-5, he basically lied and doesn’t have our best interest in mind. Saying that God really didn’t give us a visible bulwark and pillar of a Church to witness and teach the Truth, which the gates (or the provinces) of hell will not prevail against because of the hand of Jesus. You’re saying that Jesus said this…then let the provinces of hell take over the Church anyway. Blaspheme!
[/quote]
I don’t want to misrepresent Tirib’s argument (feel free to correct me if I do), but I feel like your statements here are precisely the issue of debate. “what the Universal Christians believe?” “That which is believed by Christians in all places, in all times, everywhere?” “A visible bulwark and pillar of a church to witness and teach the Truth?” In a nutshell, the legitimacy of those claims is questionable. Christians believed a lot of different things over the last 2,000 years, even in the 1500 years before the Catholic/Protestant split. If you look at the list of things believed by all, at all times, everywhere… it’s pretty short.
How long does a particular belief need adherents before it meets such criteria? John Henry Newman (and many Catholics since) have come to recognize the reality of doctrinal development (i.e., that certain doctrines the Catholic church currently espouses were not taught by the apostles, but were either (1) legitimate inferences based on their teachings, or (2) new doctrines that were nevertheless legitimate developments based on the Church’s authority). Do you agree with either of these? If the former is the case, then we should have the right to analyze these inferences to determine their degree of faithfulness. If the latter is true, then that raises some significant questions about the legitimacy of those who claim authority. Either way, development (i.e., change) has to be justified; if the church is going in a direction not clearly espoused by the apostles themselves, and it genuinely wants others to follow along, then it needs to demonstrate that its beliefs really are legitimate developments.
More importantly, how do you define “the Church?” If individual members (including Popes) have been guilty of significant immoral actions, from whence does “the Church’s” authority derive? How does “it” remain unstained? What is left to be unstained? The whole may occasionally be more than the sum of its parts, but a little leaven leavens the whole lump. If the belief-makers/ doctrine-developers are the ones who can be wrong, why should we trust them purely on the basis of their supposed authority without requiring that they prove what they say?
And most importantly, though (as I have said before) I agree that Matthew 16:18 cannot be taken as a reference to anything or anyone other than Peter (without special pleading, anyway), I don’t think the promise about the inability of the gates of Hades to prevail guarantees doctrinal infallibility. You’re reading a lot into that passage. You could just as easily argue that Jesus’ point is not that individual churches will not fall (i.e., that Satan will win NO victories), but rather that, in the end, the victory Jesus already won will become fully manifest (i.e, that the ultimate victory belongs to God).
Again, I don’t believe that the Catholic church is this beacon of evil in the world. I don’t believe that the spirit of the Antichrist pervades it or whatever else the Seventh Day Adventists are spewing today. I believe there are countless numbers of committed, faithful believers within the folds of the Catholic Church. And I also believe that they often believe some questionable things. I also believe that there are countless numbers of committed, faithful believers within the folds of Protestant churches, and that Protestant churches often believe some questionable things. And at the end of the day, I think the burden of proof is on anyone who wants to argue that “doctrinal purity” is a prerequisite for individual salvation. We have no authoritative witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ to speak to us; we do the best we can under the guidance of the Spirit to understand the Word of God. [/quote]
I agree with you KingKai, anybody who believes they have all the answers is a fool. I love the church, but I know it’s not perfect, but nobody is. But the truth is that the church is the domain of the people, not God. So therefore it is bound to be imperfect, but it’s this recognition and the desire to to do better that enables us to be children of God. But I will submit that a perfect church is for perfect people.
However, with in the scriptures, I will argue, that it’s representatives are permitted to make rules and discern and interpret the new things as right, wrong, or indifferent.
The biggest mistake people make about the church is the difference between teachings and admonitions, vs. dogma. Many think it’s the same thing and it’s not. It’s ok to disagree with a teaching, but to disagree with dogma is to be in excommunication. Knowing the difference is the key.
I will say this, for all the blemishes that people are more than happy to hold us to the fire for, there is tremendous grace. It’s that grace that got us through, for if it were not of God’s will, it would have been long dead.