Catholicism

Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.

[theresearchpersona]

Finally, if I was going to pick a Pope (not that I am) to start my chain of apostolic succession, I would choose Peter over Jim McCotter in a New York minute.

Here here!

As for theology: love it because it's what made be go "wait a minute", and for another reason: about the best translation for "theology" that I can think of is "About God". No kidding.

Biblical theology is what God has revealed about Himself...not just what a bunch of men say, or what they interpret as God's work in their lives; if their experiences, etc. don't line up with God's revealed self: there's an issue.

I don't blame you, though for saying that you don't like theology, in the sense that it's a bit like a long historical, continuing, war; but remember that Jesus came to set people at variance; but the devil is in the details...he can take and try to work at doing the same among people, but what's interesting is that the devil may not necessarily apply: people in their own state, greed, pride, ego, power-hungriness, etc. can do well enough what people would attribute to the old serpent on their own as well.

The peace Christ has bestowed upon His sheep is peace between them and God: they're still sent as sheep among wolves. But you know, theology can hurt even to know, because once you know a little you have the responsibilities that come along with it--and a little knowledge is a dangerous things, so you have to learn more, and then more responsibility: you don't want to handle "About God" like an amateur--the Word of God, and every application thereof, is a Sword, you don't swing something like that around playfully.

Theology is also a means, even if unpopular, to separate your own ideas and passions from the Word's Himself, and thereby be truly edifying and unharmful; I did not say unhurtful, but rather harmless to them: truly edifying, loving, caring, and etc..

We Christians are bearers and lovers of truth and light; and interestingly we could put it that we're "water bearers", the Word will end up being a refreshment to the souls of Saints parched on the poison they're getting fed by so many; it washes away grime; it floods-away grime we actually like and takes our footing off the ground we only think is solid, and makes us look to God to call on Him.

Theology="About God"; learn to love it...even if love hurts. I mentioned the bad teachings on the eucharist, for example, right? Yet I love the Catholics, I love the Lutherans: so it's just pain, I guess, but you don't stop loving because someone causes you pain, you love more, you give them more grace, more challenge, more time, more patience: someone hurts you more...you show them more love, more sacrifice.

And it's theology that lets you do this: considering God's love, His grace, His patience...though we deserve none of it, though we can do nothing to get it. You could also render theology "considering/thinking-on God", or "Word/s about God", or "The Study of God", or "Dwelling on God" (all through His Revelation--the Word, properly). It's "theos+logos", the latter part being the word, "Logos", used of Jesus: it's quite a able term; so combined into "theology", it tells you and I a lot.

Grace.

[AgathaL'Orange]

I'm sorry, but it is offensive when you say, "bad teachings on the eucharist."  You say you take the Bible literally.  What part of, "This is my body" means this is bread and grape juice?  Obviously, there is more said on the matter!  I don't mean to be rude, but I think it's fair to say, there's a chance people either
1.  Don't know exactly what that means... and that's okay... "Do this in remembrance" and you're okay
2.  have beliefs ranging from transubstantiation of the Catholics, the "real presence" of the Orthodox, or the symbolism of the Protestants, all which could be valid interpretations.
3.  One of these is correct and everyone else believes "bad teachings"

My guess is that it's either literal or it's "okay" salvation wise to believe one of the classic, and substantiated variations.  I wouldn't dare to say someone else's beliefs on the matter are definitively
"bad".... that seems presumptuous.

It's so frustrating when there's no "buck stops here" person for the interpretation of scripture.  

Here's something from Luther on the topic.

Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”



Then again you have the Westminster Confession saying that what Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, and Episcopalians to is repugnant.

http://www.pcanet.org/general/cof_chapxxvi-xxx.htm#chapxxix


So obviously we're not going to solve this here.

Suffice it to say, GC led me wholeheartedly into the Greek Orthodox Church along with other people both that I know and that I have heard of.  It's an attempt on my part to anchor myself to something that I believe is anchored to Christ along with my own desire to be anchored to Christ.

Few of us really wish to be free spirited Christians following whatever new teaching comes up on the subject.  I am alarmed by new teachings and avoid them as much as possible.  Give me that "old timed religion" old, old, old, old, OLD timed religion!!!

[theresearchpersona]

I admire that you want to go after what is old, that is good:

Thus says the LORD, "Stand by the ways and see and ask for the ancient paths, Where the good way is, and walk in it; And you will find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.' --Jer 6:16

It's funny, though, how, for instance, people say the "Reformation was something new", whereas those men said, "no, we're returning to the old"...the Bible. As we know, though, they aren't perfect men: Luther, for instance, wasn't perfect: and what he taught on eucharist was much different than what Lutherans now teach today (in fact the words he wrote were changed by Melanchton, and were words Luther probably would have reproved). The Lutherans protest the taking of "is" as "means", as in that what he is saying is symbolry; a careful consideration if the Bread and Wine is supposed to be Christ's blood and body, having His "real presence" imbued in the substance, and the most unheard, but also the one no Catholic or Lutheran seems to ever reply to (or Orthodox), is the fact that He was ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY present when he said those words: making it quite difficult to argue that the bread and wine were transformed into Him...especially since the Wine couldn't be His shed blood--it hadn't been shed yet!

When there's a contention on some thing, we should not, necessarily, say "what saith the establishment", but rather "what does the Lord say". In this case, it's a controversy swept-away if we look at one tiny word, the Greek "to be", so in english it is rendered here "is"; how does our Lord use the Greek "to be"?

Words of Jesus:

"I am the vine, you are the branches"
"I am the door..."
"I am the light..."

And so on. Case closed: it's symbolic; he's not a door: he's a person; yet in metaphor this makes perfect sense. Just paying attention to the context clears this up: the wine cannot be his literally shed blood before He has shed it...it represents that; He is indicating something to His apostles...which is about to be revealed: something they didn't understand till it went down: or perhaps had denied (he had said He must be sacrificed before; He also told them straight that the one He handed the morsel would be the traitor--yet they misunderstood).

This isn't a hard thing; and it wouldn't be a big deal if it weren't for the fact that the way this misunderstanding, and outright defiance of the text's own intent, what is obvious, from merely studying the text (I didn't learn this from a bunch of people fighting over my opinion: besides it being obvious one should actually look at the uses of the term and say "oh, that's how scripture says it, means it, uses it...".

You know, I admire Luther...yet I have no loyalties to men: He still erred on this; and that erring led to much graver doctrinal formulation; the Lutherans, for instance, deny they have "consubstantiation" and prefer "sacramental union", not terms I care to fight over too much; nevertheless they're two sides of one coin. However I have a Lutheran report that clearly espouses...transubstantiaton; and any way you take it these substantiations of this and that sort, are still based upon wresting scripture, and still have the seemingly inevitable (because it always happens) end of blaspheming Christ and denying his finished work (whether explicitly or implicitly).

Part of being Christian is looking to God's Voice, and hearing that, and eschewing all others even if it's uncomfortable, even if you're going against the grain, or if it hurts; better to hurt by touching wounds to dress them, than to ignore them and pretend they're not there. Better to hurt than harm, than harm by not mentioning what hurts.

I agree...give me that old fashioned religion: but the way the Apostles and Our Lord gave it, not the corruptions men moulded it around; and you know, we don't, necessarily, condemn those men, nor question sincerity; yet there are cases where we do--like when we know otherwise; or when they trample over sheep; or when they deny, implicitly or explicitly, Christ: hoping by our open rebuke that they will turn to the Lord, and repent.

The Word of God gives us light, Christ's Spirit leads us; and the Holy Spirit is our anchor and guide...not institutions; those fail, the Church lives on, but not necessarily that visibly, or even as organized as even it might like. But if you want to anchor yourself, be washed in the Word as He prayed (John 17). Christ be our head, not the men who usurp it; not those who declare themselves "vicars" (which means "substitute"; Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and even Anglicanism--minus some of its highly visible members' dissent--have men claiming to be "Vicars of Christ"; which means "substitute of Christ", which we can translate straight from the Greek "antichrist"; those who would replace Christ, are his enemy! I don't take kindly to that, you know. There is one early-church reference to the true "Vicar of Christ": Tertullian applied the title to the Holy Spirit, being as How Jesus said He would not leave us alone, but send a comforter to lead and teach us; an we know he doesn't mean it in a bad sense, but in the sense that He's sent by Christ, and He keeps us company. Amen.

[miserere]

Case closed?
"Will you also leave me?"
"To whom shall we go, Lord.  You have the words of eternal life."

[AgathaL'Orange]

1.  I don't think the Pope should be the pope, but I don't think he's the antichrist.
2.  I don't follow any antichrist, and I don't plan to.
3.  I don't want to argue.  I was merely saying that perhaps it would be better to phrase things more gently since we probably won't solve this or come to an agreement.
4.   I believe that my priest is an icon of Christ... an image and representation, a symbol.
5.    I believe that the Eucharist is the real presence of my Lord and I experience blessing and grace when I partake. I respect others views on the matter.  I have held other views in my life and felt blessing then as well.
6.  Jesus didn't always speak in symbols and parables... sometimes He did.  So the idea that we would ALWAYS know when he was is silly in my opinion.
7.  If all people need is the Bible and the Holy Spirit, then why are you even bothering staying at GC to help people understand the truth or arguing with people on here?  Clearly, you think people need other input.  I do too!  Why would Paul say, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle," if it were ONLY scripture and ONLY the Holy Spirit who would guide us?  
9.  Early, early writings speak of this as a core issue and come down on the side of "real presence."
10.  No church is perfect in all ways.  I don't know anyone who thinks my church is perfect.  There is a healthy respect though in my church and a willingness to submit to teachings while simultaneously having real ways for people to question authority... something there really wasn't in GC.
11.  I like my church.  I plan to stay here for a long time, if not forever.  I feel like everything makes sense now.  
12.  I have a lot more important things in my life to worry about than all of this.  The most important of all being whether or not I love God and love others.  I would like to improve my prayer habits, my parenting habits, my worship habits, my gratitude habits, my kindness, my overeating, my complaining habits, or feeling sorry for myself habits...  I have found a home where I have built in accountability with a gentle priest who encourages my walk.  I have found a place where literally everything I touch in the church itself is laden with meaning, reminders, beauty, and history.  I have found a place where (contrary to some things people have said on here) I feel unified with believers worldwide.  I love my church, and I love the Head of my church.  So say what you will, I stand by the creed, the ancient church fathers, the Holy Scriptures, and the sacraments.  You can not shake my faith or accuse me of worshiping the antichrist or send me to hell.  I am at the mercy of God.

[theresearchpersona]

Anyone who calls himself Christ's Vicar, whether Pope or patriarch, bishop or other, is still defining himself an "antichristo"; all the way back then we read in first John "even now there are many antichrists"; someone could emotionally appeal and defend the GC leadership as fine, but it still teaches some are more blessed than others by its double-standards in regards itself, showing themselves to be the very men who are factious and marked to be avoided.

4.   I believe that my priest is an icon of Christ... an image and representation, a symbol.

Unlike this, however, scripture itself teaches that every believer represent Christ: even supposed to be adorning him or herself with the doctrine of Christ; and that the whole body when it looks to its true head--Christ, no man, no man is the Church's head, or any Church's head, for that matter--THEN it will fall into place, its members being knit and properly functioning together, and then it corporately and visibly represents, whether in a large or small congregation, Christ.

6.  Jesus didn't always speak in symbols and parables... sometimes He did.  So the idea that we would ALWAYS know when he was is silly in my opinion.

True, but this doesn't make me or anyone else, for that matter, go "I guess it's a mystery what's a parable or what's not", when it is in fact plain from the scripture's own cues. "I am the door" isn't unobvious; and even if "This is my body" where truly that arguable, which it is not, we don't necessarily have to know if it were one or the other, so much as we can also look at the basis of eucharistic teachings and proceed from there to examine them biblically: and we do do this, all the time...and those who hold to those teachings still cannot give a scriptural answer, whereas the Word says it is able to equip the Saints for such a task. The point is not to harangue people needlessly, but to contend for the faith that Trust be placed back surely into Christ, not a priestly ordinance; "priest" is biblically defined as "believer", for instance: Catholics/Lutherans/Orthodox/High-Anglicans/Many Protestants say that only a properly "ordained minister" can "administer the sacraments", as if they were a medicine rather than token of remembrance; however even the way the "Eucharist" is carried out is...improper: biblically it is an actual, proper, meal; the bread and wine being part of it! And Biblically all believers can engage and partake in it, whether or not specifically allowed or disallowed by men. To the eucharistic "ministers" it's a power thing.

7.  If all people need is the Bible and the Holy Spirit, then why are you even bothering staying at GC to help people understand the truth or arguing with people on here?  Clearly, you think people need other input.  I do too!  Why would Paul say, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle," if it were ONLY scripture and ONLY the Holy Spirit who would guide us?  

That should be obvious: when people aren't reading the word in context, or when teachers are misteaching...they aren't in the word. Furthermore "hold to the traditions which ye have been taught" refers to the Apostles' traditions, not just traditions ambiguous; do we really need to get into Jesus's teachings on making God's word void by men's traditions? That should be obvious...and what I am getting at.

9.  Early, early writings speak of this as a core issue and come down on the side of "real presence."

Early writings also contend with Paul, espouse semi-gnosticism, pelagianism, and a bunch of things the NT contends against: the NT's practical purpose, its reason for existence, is that it was wrought in, to contend with, an environment where false teaching exploded: includings false Christs, antichrists, apostles, prophets, and even believers: it's a polemical document; a combative document; but not for the sake of vainglory, but for the protection of the saints and the securing of the faith.

10.  No church is perfect in all ways.  I don't know anyone who thinks my church is perfect.  There is a healthy respect though in my church and a willingness to submit to teachings while simultaneously having real ways for people to question authority... something there really wasn't in GC.

That is, until you question certain untouchable things: you know that Rome, the Orthodox, and the High-Church Anglicans: the "big three", if you will, affirm that all outside their communions are invalid or improper Churches, moving back toward the former "not churches" opinion, unless those Churches form some kind of agreement or be somehow subdued to them? They say their communion is invalid too, and that their ministers are not ministers...how lovingly able to be questioned. Of course there is unofficial dissent, and this is allowed if quiet or as long as you're somehow under their umbrellas. But the one thread of all this is not that they accept another group if they have the faith, or love of the word, or profession in Christ that is unimpeachable by the Bible: but whether or not they have a physically traceable heritage from THEIR EARTHLY authority.

I don't question these things on "my" authority, you know; and I do appreciate you. I wouldn't question a lot of things if I didn't have the word. You say you feel connected to the Church at large...but those groups often deny it. Not always popularly, but officially. The big big problem, though, is that they teach and affirm that their "eucharist" is efficacious, adding to the work Christ finished already: whether Christ is the one named doing it or not...they still say only one of "our" properly ordained ministers/priests can "administer" it; and as you probably know already all their activities, EVERYTHING, is centered around that one sacrament. A "mystery", the "mysterion"; GC did a lot of its own thing and then said "look what the Lord has done"...though they disobeyed, lied, and trampled-over people; just because something is attributed to God...such as saying God is doing something through the eucharist...doesn't meant He is.

I am at the mercy of God.

So am I not to let the sheep down by ceasing to defend them...even if they "feel" like it is an attack on what they hold dear; if you hold the eucharist as an efficacious thing, then yes, I am attacking it: absolutely. If you hold ONLY to Christ for your salvation, putting full trust in Him, and denying that any other is the head of the Church: then and only then, evidenced in profession and deed, would I be able to cease speaking. The reason being what you said "I am at the mercy of God".

[AgathaL'Orange]

I would like you to answer what can happen scripturally if you take communion in an "unworthy" way.  My guess is that you will say that you reap judgment upon yourself and that some have gotten sick or even died.

So, obviously, communion can affect you in a PHYSICAL way.  Now.  Why is it that you think that communion can only affect you physically in a negative way.  Why, when early teachings and the Bible are really clear on this, do you reject the POSITIVE nature of communion upon our physical bodies?

And I do hold to Christ exclusively.  He has chosen communion as a sacrament bestowing grace to me.  Not THE only means of grace.  A means of grace.  

This is a belief that has stood the test of time and really wasn't questioned all that much (to my limited understanding... I'll hold that you probably know of others!!!) except for gnostics and then later in the Zwingli era.

So WHERE was the church holding the "saving faith" all those years?  Do you really believe when Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against His church that it would have gone wrong so very shortly after His ascension into heaven?

[G_Prince]

True, but this doesn't make me or anyone else, for that matter, go "I guess it's a mystery what's a parable or what's not", when it is in fact plain from the scripture's own cues. "I am the door" isn't unobvious; and even if "This is my body" where truly that arguable, which it is not, we don't necessarily have to know if it were one or the other, so much as we can also look at the basis of eucharistic teachings and proceed from there to examine them biblically: and we do do this, all the time...and those who hold to those teachings still cannot give a scriptural answer, whereas the Word says it is able to equip the Saints for such a task. The point is not to harangue people needlessly, but to contend for the faith that Trust be placed back surely into Christ, not a priestly ordinance; "priest" is biblically defined as "believer", for instance: Catholics/Lutherans/Orthodox/High-Anglicans/Many Protestants say that only a properly "ordained minister" can "administer the sacraments", as if they were a medicine rather than token of remembrance; however even the way the "Eucharist" is carried out is...improper: biblically it is an actual, proper, meal; the bread and wine being part of it! And Biblically all believers can engage and partake in it, whether or not specifically allowed or disallowed by men. To the eucharistic "ministers" it's a power thing.

Actually, I believe Jesus is speaking literally here when he says “I am the door.” This is why I’ve started venerating all doors I come in contact with. I say a short prayer to Christ whenever I pass through. Now I know you think this is wrong, maybe you even think I’m an eff-ing loony. But really who cares? Clearly you don’t believe in any kind of scriptural authority on the matter so really I can believe whatever makes most sense to me. I have been “equipped” by the word for just such a task. You can rail against me all you wish but what authority do you have? None. You’re just an anonymous blogger in a chat room with a nice library. Why should I listen to your opinion over mine…and please don’t tell me because it’s “correct.”. I can find thousands of diverse and highly intelligent opinions on scripture. We are both Christians, we can both interpret the scripter how we will. Your opinion is no better than mine…even if I am founding a new Church of the door…it’s a building built entirely from door frames if you really want to know.

When it comes down to it TRP, the only opinion you really think matters is yours. You refuse to listen to anyone, even to respectfully disagree. I’m sorry you’ve had horrible experiences with Catholics, but I’ve had equally horrible experiences with your strand of theology. It caused me depression and eventually drove me to atheism. I didn’t find Christ again until I joined a sacramental church. So say what you want but the Church has saved my life, no matter how many anti-Christ hands I kiss. You can believe what you want because I know it is good for you. But you can’t convince me to join you. I know better.
[/url]

[theresearchpersona]

I didn’t find Christ again until I joined a sacramental church.
[/url]

“There are none who seek God, no not one.” --Romans 3

I've never had a bad experience with Catholics: just been around them and learned what they teach vs. God's teaching.

You can go ahead and mock reading the Word all you want...mock all you want; kiss the hands of antichrists if you want; but it's not a joke.

I don't know what theology you encountered: maybe it was no good; maybe it was riddled by men of bad character; perhaps they were jerks; or perhaps you just didn't like it.

You should be aware, though, that no one finds Jesus, either the Father gives them to Jesus, or they are left in their "damnation", their state, just as Jesus told the mobs who didn't understand Him, though he told the same people that if they didn't believe they would perish. I don't find these arguments a silly joke to angrily rant-off at somebody "because I found Jesus in...", rather I say to you, don't consider that you've found anything because of what you think or feel, but as 1 John says, test yourself whether you stand in the faith or not.

To consider a Catholic Theologian, here, and remember this is pre-Reformation Catholic, Aquinas was asked how it could be that the Bible says that no one seeks God; he told him that they were seeking God's benefits, but not God Himself, and that we're all fugitives: we conclude they, or we, (or "I"), am seeking God, but really they are not.

You want to know about me? For me to be a little less "anonymous" in the sense of what I'm like?

I hate confrontation: I'm timid and I don't like to speak up on tough things; but I don't do it just in chat rooms: I get asked those hard questions more and more, unexpectedly--people trying to trap me with questions they think I wouldn't dare answer from scripture; and then if I do they say "WELL I THINK": angry that I'd dare. I hardly dare: I'm not confident, and I don't like making anyone angry: but I'd rather be ridiculed than face my maker for not standing up for truth: something I'm afraid I may have to do a lot of one day.

Once a guy came up screaming because of "Do not be deceived, God will not be mocked. Whatsoever you so that shall you also reap". I didn't have to be specific, the guy's conscience set him off--I hadn't said anything else, either.

As for others' opinions: I'm currently undertaking the study of many different editions of the various confessions of faith, through various revisions in history: meanwhile I'm planning to learn Latin in order to read not only the ancient works, but also the current modern-day Catholic ones since that's its ecclesiastical language: and I have the materials and a little bit of groundwork--a little much for a language which is overly ambiguous in scripture, and confined by lack of features, as well as in order to meet, on fair grounds, on their grounds (with the Word), them despite being in these eyes in total rebellion, usurping God's attributes to the Pope (as Ratzinger has done in the new Catechism), Christ's place and works through their own sacraments and teaching that all must be subject to the Pope or else they are damned, the heretical denial of Christ's necessity by offering indulgences (plenary if you walk through this door or that, or...), the sovereign unique-place of Christ's own name being the only one we must needs be subject to for salvation (again, we must be subject to the Pope for salvation, say they officially), the pretentious farces they pawn on so many by manipulating terms (Hershel's "Slander", anyone?).

I don't consider opinions wholly unimportant: just secondary; to scripture; just as that "father" Clement of Alexandria taught that we look to scripture rather than settling on opinions. With the talk of leading of the Holy Spirit, there sure is a lot of implicit denial going on here when I keep reading how "we can all have different opinions" rather than "the Holy Spirit can lead us into all Truth": a wonder how then it's claimed by so many all over on this or that how "He led me in this" and "He led me in that", rather than "Christ prayed that we be washed in the Word, and said He would send the comforter to lead us into all truth, we have to believe that and obey Him". You know "heresies" is literally "choose" (i.e., to choose one's own opinions!), "factions" and "sects", etc. are implications of the word which render it in English, but not the translation.

So yes, I'm not interested in "heresies", not even in my own...the one that matters is the Lord's, in scripture, which I believe is findable and fully available to those who will study approved, and listen.

[AgathaL'Orange]

Is there anyone here who doesn't think scripture is the final authority on a matter?  I highly doubt it!!  

I think the question is WHOSE interpretation of scripture will you follow?


Does a scholar follow his own interpretation on an issue if it contradicts a large percentage of the church both today and through history?

That's the issue.  

GC happened because there was no set orthodox teaching... that's why you have people teaching the Melchisidek IS Christ, the church is the bride of the pastor, people must be GC forever, dating is a sin, etc.  That's why I and a few others on here have searched for an authentic, consistent, historically proven, creed based Christianity.  We don't want to get led away again based on one, two, or five people's teachings.  We want to follow a consistent belief pattern both across the world and across time.

I don't wish to denigrate your beliefs.  You're a Christian, a follower of Christ.  I am too.  Actually this discussion makes me a lot more tolerant of GC simply because this attempt at delineation of who's right and who's wrong is tiresome and somewhat futile.  

Follow Christ.  Leave it at that.

[Linda]

I don't consider opinions wholly unimportant: just secondary; to scripture; just as that "father" Clement of Alexandria taught that we look to scripture rather than settling on opinions. With the talk of leading of the Holy Spirit, there sure is a lot of implicit denial going on here when I keep reading how "we can all have different opinions" rather than "the Holy Spirit can lead us into all Truth": a wonder how then it's claimed by so many all over on this or that how "He led me in this" and "He led me in that", rather than "Christ prayed that we be washed in the Word, and said He would send the comforter to lead us into all truth, we have to believe that and obey Him".

I believe the Word is the final authority. (Hence the importance of getting translations correct).

One of the biggest problems I had with GC is that I came to realize that in practice, they don't believe the Word is the final authority. They believe the pastor is the final authority (and not just on matters of faith, but in the personal decisions of individual Christians). Add to this the fact that they have a founding apostle and a chain of succession of untrained leaders that flowed from him and you have something very frightening.

There is an importance put on GC elders and their authority that is not like any I have observed in any other church or denomination. I think in part this is due to taking verses out of context and then demanding literal obedience. Lack of training and knowledge combined with zeal is a bad thing.

[lone gone]

In the end, we all must face our Creator and Judge. Even we Christians will have every one of our words and deeds examined.

The Truth is about the need for a redeemer. Even a child, a little child , can be enlightened and acknowledge their Savior. ( Notice I did not say that they can "find" salvation or choose to be saved.)

Vast knowledge, learning, language skills, analysis, and every other human attribute or endeavor can lead someone astray. St.Peter had this happen to him when certain men from James came to town and he feel into error.

Many seem to be relying on our own understanding... and not trusting God to lead them and others to the truth in His time and His way. Paul was often perplexed, but he sought less to understand God and more to follow God. Paul instructed people to follow his example, and not to endlessly wrangle about words. Paul knew that we all needed to grow into the fullness of Christ.

Men in their folly seek to understand more and more, and by that seeking they feel that they will find something. Learning and learning and learning, and never coming to the knowledge of the truth. It's as if they are saying,    "Whenever I learn something it feels good, so I must continue to learn so that I will continue to feel good." It is one more addictive behavior.

Seeking to be a learned man or woman, and then sharing those learnings with others can be a dangerous thing. What if you are only partially correct? You could be spreading error. Better to keep many things to yourself as you continue to grow. IN my past, I was often called a "Know- Nothing-Know- It- All" It hurt, but I was called this because of my behavior.

When at last you have the wisdom from above, it will be shown by it's peaceableness, gentleness, reasonableness as that wisdom is shared with  others. It will not merely be known by its multitudes of words.

[G_Prince]

In the end, we all must face our Creator and Judge. Even we Christians will have every one of our words and deeds examined.

The Truth is about the need for a redeemer. Even a child, a little child , can be enlightened and acknowledge their Savior. ( Notice I did not say that they can "find" salvation or choose to be saved.)

Vast knowledge, learning, language skills, analysis, and every other human attribute or endeavor can lead someone astray. St.Peter had this happen to him when certain men from James came to town and he feel into error.

Many seem to be relying on our own understanding... and not trusting God to lead them and others to the truth in His time and His way. Paul was often perplexed, but he sought less to understand God and more to follow God. Paul instructed people to follow his example, and not to endlessly wrangle about words. Paul knew that we all needed to grow into the fullness of Christ.

Men in their folly seek to understand more and more, and by that seeking they feel that they will find something. Learning and learning and learning, and never coming to the knowledge of the truth. It's as if they are saying,    "Whenever I learn something it feels good, so I must continue to learn so that I will continue to feel good." It is one more addictive behavior.

Seeking to be a learned man or woman, and then sharing those learnings with others can be a dangerous thing. What if you are only partially correct? You could be spreading error. Better to keep many things to yourself as you continue to grow. IN my past, I was often called a "Know- Nothing-Know- It- All" It hurt, but I was called this because of my behavior.

When at last you have the wisdom from above, it will be shown by it's peaceableness, gentleness, reasonableness as that wisdom is shared with  others. It will not merely be known by its multitudes of words.

I couldn't agree more. I love learning. I am currently a grad student and love nothing more than stacks of books littering the living room. However connecting with the God is simple and doesn't require years of study.

My priest gave me a great analogy. A theologian is a lot like a biographer. He/She can study and learn everything there is to know about someone, but this is never a substitute for actually sitting down and spending an hour with that person. While it is good and important to know about God, we must experience him fist hand or we will never truly know him. "Pray more and go to Church," were his suggestions.

Whenever I've encountered God it has little or nothing to do with head knowledge. It's like a huge light bulb worming my insides and shooting sparks from my head and fingers.