Do differences in practices of faith mean we follow the same Jesus Christ? (reject, gospel)

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

In fact, it is kardias which turns simple gnosis into a deep pistis. It has little to do with an intellectual assent.

When did I ever say that intellect was the goal and knowledge the prize? Everyone here who has disagreed with me that an intellectual approach to scripture has made rebuttals against knowledge as the prize. I never said that. I have continuously said that knowledge is a good start, and that the knowledge must be integrated into one's understanding of life. Many here seem to want to engage the emotions without engaging the mind. That's a nice little endorphin rush, but hardly a conclusive indicator of spiritual presence. We are whole human beings. That means that we have intellect, emotion, physical and spiritual dimensions. I would suggest that they all be engaged in the process of formation.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by sojourner

We are whole human beings. That means that we have intellect, emotion, physical and spiritual dimensions. I would suggest that they all be engaged in the process of formation.

I can buy that... thanks for the explaination.

[sojourner]

That's not a description of an experience. It's a metaphor.

Spiritual activity is not a metaphor. It's an experience.

We have much more. We have imagery, we have feeling, we have passion, we have aesthetics, we have mathematics.

And those are all wonderful human assets, invaluable to our spiritual experience. But we also have language. The Bible is not written in imagery, feeling, passion, aesthetic or mathematics. It's written in language -- foreign language to most of us here. Since the Bible is the rule and guide for our faith and practice, it stands to reason that we'd want to use language to understand something that is communicated through...language. In this particular case, intellect stands a better chance of fostering understanding than warm fuzzy feelings.

No they aren't. Verbage divides. That's it's purpose - to fragment reality into categories.

language seeks to make specific what is general. We are largely bound into community by language. Look at a map sometime. different languages tend to breed different cultures. In a sense, language does divide. But it also creates common ground in another sense.

Are you God? Are you ready to take up God's tools and speak your own universe into existent order - and to take responsibility for what you've wrought? Do you have the wisdom to know good and evil and thereby become like God? If not, I suggest you put down your faith in grammar and step away before you hurt someone.

What does any of this have to do with the post it supposedly answers? you're a lawyer. You should know better than to trot out this kind of argument. I suggest you stop passing judgment on my spiritual condition, before you hurt someone. )

Which one? I find this highly ironic coming from a follower of a "Protestant" denomination spun-off from the Roman Catholic Church.

Any. Look at any human institution -- God's there. My denomination does not directly "spin off" from Roman Catholicism. That's why the term Protestant is in " ".

Yes you do. You are talking about the athority of human beings to speak on behalf of God according to certain rules that you recognize. That's a social institution.

We need to define what is meant by "social institution," then. The Church is social, because it is made up of people working together in ministry. It is an institution because it is established. However, I doubt that's what you had in mind when you used the term. The Church is not identifiable solely by praxis, doctrine, or authority structure (except for the fact that we follow Jesus.) In that sense, it is not a "social institution," by the standards usually applied to that term.

Yes, it's quite pompous to tell someone what is and is not the "Church" isn't it?

You know, I'm arguing for a very open definition of "church." The Church exists wherever God's people exist in community.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by sojourner

You know, I'm arguing for a very open definition of "church." The Church exists wherever God's people exist in community.

Is there any group...any belief.... any situation that would prompt you to insist on a closed communion... or is it "anything goes" with whomever shows up?

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by sojourner

Everyone here who has disagreed with me that an intellectual approach to scripture has made rebuttals against knowledge as the prize.

Read the arguments once more! You seem to arguing that salvation can only be found in some sort of scholarly pursuit. We are merely saying that God wants our HEARTS. Fancy apologetics holds nothing over Faith expressing itself in Love.

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by Scott1

Is there any group...any belief.... any situation that would prompt you to insist on a closed communion... or is it "anything goes" with whomever shows up?

I think that, once upon a time, it was smart, for the sake of survival, to close the Table. but not any more. Christ is a big boy. I feel sure he can defend himself against desecrators. It's happened before, and it will happen again. And, I don't think that Christ would hurt anyone who came to him for communion -- no matter who they were.

This whole "eating to your own destruction" thing is a pretty weak argument for a closed Table, expecially because the Biblical statement that informs it was not doctrine-driven, but heart-driven.

I think Christ is all about radical love, radical inclusion, and radical salvation.

Let me offer this: If Christ is truly present, and if, when we make our communion, we truly join with him, what better medicine could there be for one who is seeking or lost?

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

Read the arguments once more! You seem to arguing that salvation can only be found in some sort of scholarly pursuit. We are merely saying that God wants our HEARTS. Fancy apologetics holds nothing over Faith expressing itself in Love.

I'm not arguing that at all! I'm arguing that scholarship is the beginning of understanding, as far as Biblical interpretation is concerned. Of course God wants our hearts! But there are way too many people who have developed really bad theology, who end up hurting themselves and others, because they failed to apply some scholarship to their reading.