Re: Converting to the RCC
Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 11:03 am
Paidion's question is an excellent one, and challenges the institutional authority of every organized group. Only the RCC and the Orthodox claim to have a good answer to the challenge—they both claim to possess authority from apostolic succession (but, since they can't both be correct, one is left to wonder which (if either) of them really possesses this authority. Interestingly, they both respect each other's authority as movements, though one of them must be regarded as a rebel split from the other.
To Thomas’ comment that a community without leadership would be much worse (apparently more easily corrupted) than even a presbyterian form of government, Darin wrote:
I understand the church to be a heavenly institution. All of its most important components—the Father of the family, the Head of the body, the apostolic leadership group, which Christ appointed, and even the citizenship of its members presently domiciled on earth—all are said to be "in Heaven." This does not leave much to define the Church as "earthly." The Body, whose Head is in heaven, has a few of its members still on earth—though millions (sometimes called the Church Triumphant) have already gone on to heaven.
The most significant feature of the Church that is on earth is the presence of the Holy Spirit, who has been given to the members of the Church Militant to guide them through the duration of their pilgrimage here.
Like all things heavenly, the Church is spiritual in nature, not political or religious. Its membership is spiritual, based upon spiritual birth (John 3:3, 5). Its worship is spiritual, not ritual (John 4:24). Its assignment (to love as Jesus loved) is also spiritual—a fruit of the Holy Spirit (John 13:34/Gal.5:22). Whatever earthly leadership may exist in the church militant, if genuine and appropriate, would also be spiritual (Rom.12:6-8/1 Cor.16:15-16/1 Thess.5:12-13/Heb.13:7).
An organization without formal leaders is chaotic and subject to corruption, if it is not a spiritual institution, made up of spiritual people. In fact, such a carnal organization is as easily corrupted despite the formal appointment of leaders, since the group described is unspiritual, it will make unspiritual choices of leaders. This is not theory, it is the history of all churches which have been “earthly institutions”—no less of Catholics than of Protestants.
The problem would appear to be inherent in the nature of institutionalized religion, in general—which is why (as near as we can tell from scripture), Jesus did not institutionalize His movement. Instead, He put His own Spirit into each true member. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is much liberty. Christians are not required to immediately come into doctrinal agreement with each other about all things. We are required only to love God with all our hearts and to love each other as He loves us. All Christians begin to do this, though imperfectly, the very day the the Holy Spirit takes possession of them, for this is the very fruit that proves Him to be present in us.
Thomas wrote:
This is certainly a good description of the behavior of unspiritual people playing at religion. It is not a description of people who are disciples of Jesus, filled with His Spirit, and seeking only to do His will. Those who are not the latter are probably not members of the true Body of Christ, and it would be good, as early as possible, to have the Church rid of them so that she can get on with the business of the Kingdom.
Thomas wrote:
The reasoning here is very difficult for me to grasp. The idea appears to be that some group of living people is needed in order to “define” the necessary “rules,” etc. Yet, the verse Thomas quoted was Matthew 28:20, which says that disciples are to be taught to do the things that Jesus commanded. Doesn’t that mean that Jesus did all the defining? It doesn’t look as if Jesus left a lot to be done by “doctrine developers.” Jesus did not tell the apostles to innovate. He told them to teach people to keep His commandments. Since we all have access to those commandments, presumably, those who are competent to teach them can do so without being themselves holders of special authoritative offices.
To Thomas’ comment that a community without leadership would be much worse (apparently more easily corrupted) than even a presbyterian form of government, Darin wrote:
Thomas replied:Unless that leader is Christ, of course. Obviously, you need earthly leadership, too, but leadership doesn't necessary imply one or more "in charge."
If the Church were indeed an "earthly institution" (as it appears to be to the eye of flesh) then it would certainly be sensible to say that it, like all worldly organizations, must have some kind of earthly hierarchy of official leaders. I am not opposed to a group having official leaders, if that becomes necessary, as Paul and Barnabas apparently deemed it to be in some of their young churches. Where my concerns kick-in are when people think the churches must have worldly leaders, simply because they think of the church as a worldly institution.I beg to disagree.
Matt.28:20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you...
The Church is an earthly institution and Christ works through humans to administer His church.
I understand the church to be a heavenly institution. All of its most important components—the Father of the family, the Head of the body, the apostolic leadership group, which Christ appointed, and even the citizenship of its members presently domiciled on earth—all are said to be "in Heaven." This does not leave much to define the Church as "earthly." The Body, whose Head is in heaven, has a few of its members still on earth—though millions (sometimes called the Church Triumphant) have already gone on to heaven.
The most significant feature of the Church that is on earth is the presence of the Holy Spirit, who has been given to the members of the Church Militant to guide them through the duration of their pilgrimage here.
Like all things heavenly, the Church is spiritual in nature, not political or religious. Its membership is spiritual, based upon spiritual birth (John 3:3, 5). Its worship is spiritual, not ritual (John 4:24). Its assignment (to love as Jesus loved) is also spiritual—a fruit of the Holy Spirit (John 13:34/Gal.5:22). Whatever earthly leadership may exist in the church militant, if genuine and appropriate, would also be spiritual (Rom.12:6-8/1 Cor.16:15-16/1 Thess.5:12-13/Heb.13:7).
An organization without formal leaders is chaotic and subject to corruption, if it is not a spiritual institution, made up of spiritual people. In fact, such a carnal organization is as easily corrupted despite the formal appointment of leaders, since the group described is unspiritual, it will make unspiritual choices of leaders. This is not theory, it is the history of all churches which have been “earthly institutions”—no less of Catholics than of Protestants.
The problem would appear to be inherent in the nature of institutionalized religion, in general—which is why (as near as we can tell from scripture), Jesus did not institutionalize His movement. Instead, He put His own Spirit into each true member. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is much liberty. Christians are not required to immediately come into doctrinal agreement with each other about all things. We are required only to love God with all our hearts and to love each other as He loves us. All Christians begin to do this, though imperfectly, the very day the the Holy Spirit takes possession of them, for this is the very fruit that proves Him to be present in us.
Thomas wrote:
A person left to himself will define the scriptures in such a way to follow that which he chooses and ignore that which is difficult. Following self-defined rules is not obedience, it is merely following ones own inclinations.
This is certainly a good description of the behavior of unspiritual people playing at religion. It is not a description of people who are disciples of Jesus, filled with His Spirit, and seeking only to do His will. Those who are not the latter are probably not members of the true Body of Christ, and it would be good, as early as possible, to have the Church rid of them so that she can get on with the business of the Kingdom.
Thomas wrote:
There must be those in charge who teach and to define that which is to be obeyed...One can obey only when the rules and proper behavior are defined by someone apart from oneself. Obedience is following the rules when you don't really want to.
Or as they always say in the Army , "You have to do it , you don`t have to like it"
The reasoning here is very difficult for me to grasp. The idea appears to be that some group of living people is needed in order to “define” the necessary “rules,” etc. Yet, the verse Thomas quoted was Matthew 28:20, which says that disciples are to be taught to do the things that Jesus commanded. Doesn’t that mean that Jesus did all the defining? It doesn’t look as if Jesus left a lot to be done by “doctrine developers.” Jesus did not tell the apostles to innovate. He told them to teach people to keep His commandments. Since we all have access to those commandments, presumably, those who are competent to teach them can do so without being themselves holders of special authoritative offices.
If I am sinning, it takes no clergyman to tell me I must repent. That is a service that any member of the Body of Christ can perform for another. If there is any qualification required in order to reprove and restore one who is erring, that qualification is suggested in Galatians 6:1—"You who are spiritual restore such a one..." Why doesn't Paul set the clergy on this task?The problem is to determine who is a legitimate authority , i.e. who has the right to tell you you are sinning and need to repent.