Do differences in practices of faith mean we follow the same Jesus Christ?

[sojourner]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Scott1]

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?

That you would even suggest using the Blessed Sacrament as a "tool" for unity.... as a means to and end... just shows how drasticly differenty our beliefs are.

 

[sojourner]

That you would even suggest using the Blessed Sacrament as a "tool" for unity.... as a means to and end... just shows how drasticly differenty our beliefs are.

It does go to show how far abroad you have taken my statements through misunderstanding. I never suggested that the Eucharist is a tool. The Eucharist is the sacramental heart of what we do and who we are as Church. The Eucharist forms us and informs us and identifies us. Eucharist is unity, therefore it fosters unity. To use exlusionary practices with regard to the Eucharist is to mutate it into something it is not, nor was intended to be. Ecumenism is at the heart of the Catholic Church -- otherwise, it would not use that name as a descriptor of who it is. One should think that, in an ever more pluralistic world stage, with cultures growing closer and closer, that this ecumenical body would be more willing to be ... ecumenical, in a truer spiritual sense, especially with regard to the Eucharist, which rightly belongs to Christ and, therefore, to all who profess him.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I'm not arguing that at all! I'm arguing that scholarship is the beginning of understanding,

Where, I (and the scriptures) would suggest that revelation is the beginning of understanding.

Matthew 16:15 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. NIV

 

[sojourner]

Where, I (and the scriptures) would suggest that revelation is the beginning of understanding.

Matthew 16:15 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. NIV

You forgot the qualifier: Where reading scripture is concerned. Your scriptural reference here has to do with coming to faith, not understanding scripture.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You forgot the qualifier: Where reading scripture is concerned. Your scriptural reference here has to do with coming to faith, not understanding scripture.

You then rely on men's understanding for faith. I still rely on the Spirit and allowing God to reveal the truth to me.

 

[sojourner]

You then rely on men's understanding for faith. I still rely on the Spirit and allowing God to reveal the truth to me.

OK. Let's take this to an absurd conclusion. If it were not for scholarship, you wouldn't be able to read the Bible, because, in the first place, it would not have been either translated or compiled in one handy-dandy English volume. Secondly, you wouldn't be able to read it, because you would not have applied the scholarship necessary to read and comprehend the written language. I think we would all agree that spiritual growth took a giant leap forward when the bulk of the population became literate during the Enlightenment. And, ironically, it has always been the literate ones who have provided the greatest theological illumination for the Church, since there has been a Bible to be read.

You seem to indicate that the Bible is the ground of your faith, yet you want to dismiss the scholarship that makes the written word understandable. An interesting choice.

 

[Scuba Pete]

OK. Let's take this to an absurd conclusion.

I agree. Your conclusion is absurd.

If it were not for scholarship, you wouldn't be able to read the Bible, because, in the first place,

We could go point by point here, but in reality you just don't believe in the POWER OF GOD.

Matthew 3:9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.NIV

 

[sojourner]

I agree. Your conclusion is absurd. If it were not for scholarship, you wouldn't be able to read the Bible, because, in the first place,

We could go point by point here, but in reality you just don't believe in the POWER OF GOD.

Matthew 3:9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.NIV[/quote]
I do believe in the power of God. But I also believe God gave us minds with which to think. We underestimate what God has done for us when we check our minds at the church door.

 

[Scuba Pete]

We underestimate what God has done for us when we check our minds at the church door.

We exhibit hubris when we believe that we are able to fully understand God without his help.

 

[sojourner]

We exhibit hubris when we believe that we are able to fully understand God without his help.

I have never, never, never, never, never said that "we use our intellect to understand God," or that "we use our intellect exclusively." What I have said is that we use our intellect in order to understand what's written in the Bible. The Bible isn't God. I have also said that intellect is a good start toward understanding the Biblical message. somehow, you keep wanting to make me out as being someone who puts no stock in spiritual experience, or the employment of such human features as intuition. I don't understand that, becuase I've never presented myself that way.

We exhibit naivete when we believe that we can understand the written word without the aid of scholarship.

 

[Scott1]

And, ironically, it has always been the literate ones who have provided the greatest theological illumination for the Church, since there has been a Bible to be read.

Literacy and scholarship are two different things....

I think Pete will concede that literacy is needed to READ.... but I don't think scholarship and intellectual assent is needed to become one with the Word... for that, all one needs is the grace of God.

 

[sojourner]

Literacy requires scholarship. Since Pete dismisses the need for scholarship on any level, he dismisses the need for literacy in understanding the Bible. Indeed, this was the case until the Enlightenment. People had the Bible read to them by...literate people. And, one cannot deny that our greatest strides in theology have been made by scholars, in any case.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Literacy requires scholarship. Since Pete dismisses the need for scholarship on any level, he dismisses the need for literacy in understanding the Bible.

Sure, that's what I am saying. You can tell by how illiterate that I am. This is an example of a troll. If anyone had any doubts about what a troll is, just read the previous post to this one. It attempts to inflame the situation by putting words in my mouth and ascribing unkind motives and thoughts to me. This should not be confused with taking a statement to it's logical conclusion.

And, one cannot deny that our greatest strides in theology have been made by scholars, in any case.

I, being "one" of sound mind and sorta sound body, do hereby DENY that the greatest strides in theology have been made by scholars. While Paul might be construed to be a scholar, his Lord and my savior was a simple carpenter and his right hand man, Peter, was but a rough fisherman. Even then, Paul refused to rely on his scholarship:

I Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."[c] 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. NIV

I must say that I delight in being a "fool for Christ"! You can strive for scholarship, but I will continue to work on discipleship. Love beats out knowledge any day of the week.