Christian Pipe Smokers

Del wrote: 27 Oct 2023, 14:26
Dude…. The Apostolic Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) were founded by the Apostles. A modern denomination can't be an "Apostolic Church" without this connection to history.

The Apostolic Church has great reverence for our Sacred Scripture, but we do not believe that our Church is built upon that Scripture. We believe that our Scripture was written for people who have already been formed in the teachings of the Apostles.

The Apostles founded The Church, not a brand for marketing by you nor I. The only connection to the history of The Church is measured against the directions the Apostles left for us. Any departure an institution makes from the direction of the Apostles makes a particular church non-Apostolic. That is simply fact. It is only by this that we can judge a good or an evil institution that calls itself a church - as the Apostles warned us this would happen so they left us the tools for discernment.

Any so called church out of accordance with the Apostolic direction found in 1 Corinthians 14:34 cannot be Apostolic. This is in fact now most of Christendom.

I am not promoting one thing over another, simply stating what the Apostle Paul has directed and using that direction for discernment. No one should care about what you or I think on any given theological subject: It’s only what God has said, His Word, that matters.

It’s wonderful that you think this or that or thus and so, but on theological matters of Apostolic authenticity, if you claim an institution to be Apostolic but cannot demonstrate and elucidate proof of authenticity according to adherence of all the Apostles writings about what church is, you must be incorrect according to the Apostle’s writings.

1 Corinthians 14:34 is a quick and simple first test for an institution’s adherence to Apostolic direction. Today most fail.

ChildOfGod wrote: 28 Oct 2023, 05:30 The Apostles founded The Church, not a brand for marketing by you nor I. The only connection to the history of The Church is measured against the directions the Apostles left for us. Any departure an institution makes from the direction of the Apostles makes a particular church non-Apostolic.

..........

1 Corinthians 14:34 is a quick and simple first test for an institution’s adherence to Apostolic direction. Today most fail.

Ummm.... fine. You can define for yourself what it means to be an "Apostolic" church. That is the license upon which protestantism is founded, after all.

But let's get back to "egalitarianism," which basically means inviting women to perform roles that have traditionally been reserved for men, because of precedents set Jesus in some cases and St. Paul in other cases.

I say that we have done the experiment. It hasn't worked out well. We should just admit that Paul was right and get back to it.
===================================
I went to a funeral this weekend at a large Methodist church in downtown Madison. Lady pastor did an adequate job of it. No one ever said that women lack the ability to preach. St. Paul just said that they shouldn't.

The church itself had lots of rainbow regalia, etc. Big banners proclaiming "In this church, ALL still means ALL." An altar was decorated with large, heavy stuff, suggesting that it is rarely used as an altar of worship. It was a display table.

Website says they have five lady pastors. All of the support staff are women, except for the organist and the facilities guy. Confirms what I said in earlier post about men abdicating their roles when women take over.

I bit my tongue respectfully, as I was the guest of a grieving family. But it saddened my heart.

On the way home, we passed a nondescript building with a very large sign announcing that it was an Evangelical Lutheran church. Attached to the sign was an equally large LGBTQIA+ flag on a pole. No mention of Jesus Christ, not even a cross. They advertise on the outside what they worship on the inside. That pastor is probably a lesbian.... I'd bet money on it.
===================================

The world is constantly trying to wriggle its tentacles into the Church. The Church has a mission to evangelize and push back against the world, spreading truth against the lies.

Too many modern parishes and church communities have dispensed with virtue and replaced it with virtue signaling. The only sin is "intolerance."

Del wrote: 29 Oct 2023, 20:10 Ummm.... fine. You can define for yourself what it means to be an "Apostolic" church. That is the license upon which protestantism is founded, after all.

No thank you! ...and you haven't understood a thing I've written... I let the Apostles define what is Apostolic, by all the Apostles have set down in their writings.

With the definition: Egalitarianism (from French égal 'equal'), or equalitarianism, is a school of thought within political philosophy that builds on the concept of social equality, prioritizing it for all people. Egalitarian doctrines are generally characterized by the idea that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or moral status. As such, all citizens of a state should be accorded equal rights and treatment under the law. Egalitarian doctrines have supported many modern social movements, including the Enlightenment, feminism, civil rights, and international human rights.

Sounds good, and who wouldn't be on board... right?

In the Biblical model for Worship, men are to lead and perform the Worship service, as servants. This comes into conflict with egalitarianism when the egalitarianist ignores two things: 1. The one leading worship, as prescribed by Scripture, is a servant, of the Lord and his fellow, not a person of power. 2. Scripture trumps human reason (and churchy reason for that matter).

Most egalitarianists are humanists (I would imagine) and so wouldn't subscribe to point 2 above. Unbounded by Scripture you can make all sorts of stuff up.

An excellent and overt example of being unbounded by Scripture can be found in Jim Jones and his cult. He was once a pastor of a Christian church. Then one day, from the pulpit, he threw his Bible down on the ground into the midst of the congregation and said, "You don't need this book!" I imagine the real Christians left, never to return, after that service. Many poor souls who didn't leave were eventually forced at gunpoint to drink poisoned cool-aid.

ChildOfGod wrote: 30 Oct 2023, 11:47

Del wrote: 29 Oct 2023, 20:10 Ummm.... fine. You can define for yourself what it means to be an "Apostolic" church. That is the license upon which protestantism is founded, after all.

No thank you! ...and you haven't understood a thing I've written... I let the Apostles define what is Apostolic, by all the Apostles have set down in their writings.

I understand exactly what you have written. I simply disagree with your definition.

Recall our history. The Reformers insisted that the Catholic Church was corrupt and false, and no longer true to the teachings of the Apostles. Then they proceed to reform Christendom (in certain geographic areas) into thousands of pieces, each piece claiming the most faithfully apostolic one.
Our Orthodox brothers are right... The Western Church are all nuts.

Just remember that relative compliance with Paul's disciplines regarding women speaking at worship is not a "mark" of Apostolic faith. A church can fail to comply with this, more or less, with more-or-less results, and it doesn't affect whether or not the church is "apostolic."

Apostolic identity (to use an abused modern word) means "historically descended from the Apostles." The Protestant denominations are not, by their own definition. They are protesting against the Apostolic Church, in their attempts to be more faithful to their own understandings of the Apostolic Church's Scripture.

Apostolic faith means literal belief John 6 and 1 Cor 11 -- Apostolic Christians must see the Body and Blood of Christ in the bread and wine. "My Flesh is real food and My Blood is real drink. If a man does not eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, he will not have life within him. But he who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood will live in Me and I in him, and I will raise him up on the last day."

The Apostles believed this, taught this, and died for this faith. St. Paul did not die to defend his position against women reading Scripture at the Liturgy.
================================

Now that all that is settled:

St. Paul was right. Men should lead. Not because women can't, but because men should. Men should be the preachers and ministers and voting elders.

And Jesus was right. God is our Father, Jesus is the Son, and thus priests must be men in order to re-present them for us sacramentally. Bishops are the successors to the Apostles. Jesus chose men to be His Apostles (the first priests and bishops), and His Apostles were guided by the Holy Spirit to choose men as their successors.

The Apostolic Church has no authority to change what Christ instituted, as Pope St. John Paul the Great reminded us.

Del wrote: 31 Oct 2023, 08:29

ChildOfGod wrote: 30 Oct 2023, 11:47

Del wrote: 29 Oct 2023, 20:10 Ummm.... fine. You can define for yourself what it means to be an "Apostolic" church. That is the license upon which protestantism is founded, after all.

No thank you! ...and you haven't understood a thing I've written... I let the Apostles define what is Apostolic, by all the Apostles have set down in their writings.

I understand exactly what you have written. I simply disagree with your definition.

Recall our history. The Reformers insisted that the Catholic Church was corrupt and false, and no longer true to the teachings of the Apostles. Then they proceed to reform Christendom (in certain geographic areas) into thousands of pieces...

HOLD ON! .... HOLD ON!... Del, I know what you mean, and love you dearly, but we're in an "ology" thread, here. This is a science based thread, and I think we should uphold a strict scientific and historical standard. In this thread, in these sorts of conversations, colloquialism can get us in all sorts of trouble.

No, "they" did not reform Christendom into thousands of pieces.

I think what you mean is that the first reformers created a small set of denominations or churches, like 2 to 5 (I'll affirm Luthern and Presbyterian); and later, not by reformers, but by others, that gets fractured into what seems like a thousand pieces (e.g. King Henry VIII just wanted an unbiblical divorce - that ain't reform).

Start over, Del?

ChildOfGod wrote: 31 Oct 2023, 10:41 I think what you mean is that the first reformers created a small set of denominations or churches, like 2 to 5 (I'll affirm Luthern and Presbyterian); and later, not by reformers, but by others, that gets fractured into what seems like a thousand pieces (e.g. King Henry VIII just wanted an unbiblical divorce - that ain't reform).

I think that, to the Roman Catholic, "2 to 5" is no different than 200. A split is a split no matter how many subsequent splits may occur. The reformers unyoked themselves from the Church in Rome and, having no base, no solid foundation, left the door open for all the other splits. Thus saith the Pope. Or at least the Del.

The Protestant would say "Hold on there cowboy! We've built on that same solid foundation as you have."

ChildOfGod wrote: 31 Oct 2023, 10:41 HOLD ON! .... HOLD ON!... Del, I know what you mean, and love you dearly, but we're in an "ology" thread, here. This is a science based thread, and I think we should uphold a strict scientific and historical standard. In this thread, in these sorts of conversations, colloquialism can get us in all sorts of trouble.

No, "they" did not reform Christendom into thousands of pieces.

I think what you mean is that the first reformers created a small set of denominations or churches, like 2 to 5 (I'll affirm Luthern and Presbyterian); and later, not by reformers, but by others, that gets fractured into what seems like a thousand pieces (e.g. King Henry VIII just wanted an unbiblical divorce - that ain't reform).

Start over, Del?

It's not worth it. We have each made, and then repeated, our arguments regarding the definition and meaning of "Apostolic Church." Let it rest.
==============================
As for "egalitarianism":

GK Chesterton opposed giving women a right to vote!

Not because women were unworthy, but because women were too powerful. He believed that is was best to hold to a principle of "one family, one vote" -- and men should cast the votes. This system of democracy had developed organically in accord with ancient wisdom, and should not be discarded.

A century ago, governments were of suitable size and scope. Setting tariffs to maintain an army, keep up with roads and bridges, establish courts and jails, put some away for emergencies and disasters. That was about it.

Meanwhile women kept the homes, raised the children, and basically controlled everything that was vital for sustaining civilization.

Chesterton warned that if we put the power of government into the hands of women, pretty soon women will use government to manage everything that women do.
Government will educate all the children.
Government will control, distribute and ration healthcare.
Government will provide welfare and incomes whenever unreliable men fail to provide.
Government will promise a pension for every elder.
Government will prohibit alcohol, to keep their husbands sober.
And so on. The whole "Nanny State."

Naturally, this expansion will cost a lot of money. There will be a tax on all our wages, and it will be excessive.

And once a government is this powerful and intrusive, it can be hijacked by forces who do not care at all about women or their families.

St. Paul saw all of this coming from miles and centuries away. The Holy Spirit even allowed this wisdom to be written into our Sacred Scripture.

Del wrote: 31 Oct 2023, 11:26

ChildOfGod wrote: 31 Oct 2023, 10:41 HOLD ON! .... HOLD ON!... Del, I know what you mean, and love you dearly, but we're in an "ology" thread, here. This is a science based thread, and I think we should uphold a strict scientific and historical standard. In this thread, in these sorts of conversations, colloquialism can get us in all sorts of trouble.

No, "they" did not reform Christendom into thousands of pieces.

I think what you mean is that the first reformers created a small set of denominations or churches, like 2 to 5 (I'll affirm Luthern and Presbyterian); and later, not by reformers, but by others, that gets fractured into what seems like a thousand pieces (e.g. King Henry VIII just wanted an unbiblical divorce - that ain't reform).

Start over, Del?

It's not worth it. We have each made, and then repeated, our arguments regarding the definition and meaning of "Apostolic Church." Let it rest.

I gracefully and humbly accept your defeat.

Del sounds like Calvin. Not Calvin the reformer guy, Calvin the cartoon guy.

"Those yucky girls are why we have Biden."