tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post3095552984541785123..comments2024-03-14T14:41:17.663-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Should We Look For One Denomination To Which Everybody Must Submit?Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-20789963288078591002008-05-29T07:03:00.000-04:002008-05-29T07:03:00.000-04:00The Dude wrote:"No Protestant communion I'm aware ...The Dude wrote:<BR/><BR/>"No Protestant communion I'm aware of claims infallibility or divinely instituted authority to bind one's conscience or rule definitely on a matter of faith (hence this discussion on denominations), so I'm not sure why anyone would even feel obligated to have to submit to any such body (as opposed to EO/RC)."<BR/><BR/>Some of the issues you've raised have been addressed in other threads, but I would summarize by saying that judgments on matters of church authority are similar to judgments on other matters of authority, such as the authority of governments and parents. Governments and parents don't have to be infallible in order to have significant authority subordinate to the authority of scripture. Judgments about when we should and shouldn't submit to a government or parent would have to be made case-by-case, and not every answer to every question we can imagine is spelled out in detail in scripture. We have some general principles to go by, but God hasn't given us detailed answers to every conceivable question. The same is true of church authority.<BR/><BR/>Even those who believe in some form of church infallibility tend not to extend that infallibility to every church official or every action taken by the church body in question. Thus, even those who advocate some form of church infallibility have to address matters of when it's appropriate to submit to the church and when it isn't.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"Is it your view that sola fide was a doctrinal development or no?"<BR/><BR/>People refer to different types of doctrinal development in different contexts. I don't know what you have in mind. I believe that justification through faith alone was taught by and understood by the apostles and their contemporaries. Some individuals and groups would have had a development in their understanding of the concept over time, but the concept was present and could be understood without much difficulty from the beginning of church history.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"Well, my question here would depend on what you answer about authority, but if a church is to have authority, it has to be visible right?"<BR/><BR/>Visible in what sense? The writings of Moses remain authoritative, even though he isn't presently visible as a person on earth. Something like his writings could be considered a visible manifestation of his authority. Moses wouldn't have to always be visible in the same form in order to be considered an authority. People often speak of church authority in the sense of what past generations of Christians believed or what a church council of a past century taught, for example, even though such forms of church authority don't involve a physically visible bishop, council, or church building in the present day.<BR/><BR/>A church consists of people, and people are always going to be visible in some contexts. When people refer to an invisible church, they're referring to invisibility in a particular context, not every conceivable context. A church will be visible in some ways, but not necessarily the ways emphasized by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, for example.<BR/><BR/>Parents are normally an authority in a child's life, but there are times when a parent dies, a parent leaves the home for an extended period of time, etc. We can speak of the normative role of parents without intending to deny that there are some qualifications and exceptions. The same is true of church authority. We should seek to have congregational meetings, bishops, deacons, the celebration of the eucharist, etc., but there are circumstances under which it can be acceptable to not have these things, and there's a hierarchy of priorities. If an institution claims a succession from the apostles, yet it denies the deity of Christ and adds works to the gospel, for example, it wouldn't make sense to keep pointing to what Jesus and the apostles taught about church authority while ignoring what they taught about the deity of Christ and justification. Church authority has to be considered along with other issues.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74966471493961930742008-05-28T23:48:00.000-04:002008-05-28T23:48:00.000-04:00Hi Jason,I posted a similar question in the 20k de...Hi Jason,<BR/>I posted a similar question in the 20k denom thread as Nick's first one which I think you touched on in your second paragraph but I'd be curious to get more clarification so I repost it here:<BR/><BR/>What's the view here on church authority? Presumably you believe in some form of it, but what is the line between when schism/leaving is justified and when does it become a sinful act of disobedience? Or, another way, when is it virtuous to submit one's conscience/defer to an ecclesiastical authority, and when is one obligated to exercise that conscience in separating? Does it just simply come down to when one begins to disagree with the church on what one deems an essential? No Protestant communion I'm aware of claims infallibility or divinely instituted authority to bind one's conscience or rule definitely on a matter of faith (hence this discussion on denominations), so I'm not sure why anyone would even feel obligated to have to submit to any such body (as opposed to EO/RC).<BR/><BR/>A few more thoughts:<BR/>"If Catholicism seems to be wrong about justification, and scripture defines that error on justification as an error of a foundational nature (as in Galatians)"<BR/>Is it your view that sola fide was a doctrinal development or no?<BR/><BR/>"But the idea that there must be one denomination in continuous existence is dubious."<BR/>Well, my question here would depend on what you answer about authority, but if a church is to have authority, it has to be visible right?The Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00211478133160497647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-89092906641140457672008-05-27T14:11:00.000-04:002008-05-27T14:11:00.000-04:00Well, there will come a time when all will be reve...Well, there will come a time when all will be revealed. And we will all see who is delusional and who is not.<BR/><BR/>Yes thnuhthnuh, you are right. From Dawkins' perspective, he certainly does think Christians are delusional and that they should keep their delusions to themselves and to stop evangelizing in contradiction to Christ's commandment in the Great Commission.<BR/><BR/>At the same time Christians know that atheists like Dawkins are being deluded by the Enemy. And that the Enemy is using Dawkins' to evangelize people into deluding themselves that there is no God.<BR/><BR/>But this is an aside from Nick's delusion that there is One True Church and that Scripture supports the RCC doctrine of One True Church.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-27089862547283800662008-05-27T13:55:00.000-04:002008-05-27T13:55:00.000-04:00As an aside, why do delusional people want to spre...<I>As an aside, why do delusional people want to spread their delusions? If you insist upon being self-delusional, at least have the courtesy to keep your delusions to yourself.</I><BR/><BR/>That is Dawkins' point! ;)thnuhthnuhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07825488332154700881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-28503167917228077332008-05-27T12:38:00.000-04:002008-05-27T12:38:00.000-04:00Laughable. Really quite humorous. There is far, ...Laughable. Really quite humorous. There is far, far, far more Scriptural Support, and utterly convincing Scriptural support for Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, than there is for a One, True, Infallible Church based upon Matthew 16:18.<BR/><BR/>Puh-leeze. As an aside, why do delusional people want to spread their delusions? If you insist upon being self-delusional, at least have the courtesy to keep your delusions to yourself.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.com