Which isn’t a given by any means (I mean that it’s not authomatic that someone may perceive Nicaea as perfectly aligned with the Gospel). I remember someone opening a thread in this very forum about the alleged unscriptural nature of the doctrine of the Trinity (he was technically correct about it, as ὁμοούσιος is literally nowhere to be found in the Bible and Athanasius himself admitted that the fathers had to come up with that because the Arians were extremely good at twisting Scripture and could not be conclusively proven wrong with just Scripture).
But again what does one Church mean? What does one faith mean (and how is “one faith” compatible with different sets of beliefs on fundamental matters)? What does “one Lord” mean (the Arians absolutely called Jesus “Lord”, they also called him the Son of God, Christ, and Savior. The problem was what His lordship meant and whether he was fully equal to God the Father)?
Again, were we unified with the Arians? Or do we claim that there was a fundamental disagreement that made communion with them impossible?
Tolerance and love are both things that have to be applied to people, but why should this imply tolerance for error?
It is possible to be loving and tolerant with people while at the same time being intolerant with error.
Jesus talked about eternal life I don’t even remember how many times. And never in a way that would leave the door open to an “impersonal eternity” (namely the dissolution of the self).
Why did Jesus create a Church in the first place if none of this was important? Why did He say that whoever listened to the apostles was listening to Him?
So, claiming that Jesus was merely human and that he might even have shagged Mary Magdalene, for example, shouldn’t be considered an error?
Why not Islam, then? Perhaps Muhammad was right. How can we know he wasn’t? For that matter, how can we know that the Hindu gods aren’t real?
I don’t see how your model (if there is a model to begin with) leads to anything other than an indefinitely vague form of theism at best, or outright agnosticism at worst.
Edit:
Also
2 Timothy 4:3
“For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”
It looks like Scripture itself makes a big deal out of sound doctrine (which means that error should not be tolerated in itself, as if it were indifferent or not a thing at all).
As for this specifically
1 Corinthians 1:10
“I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.”
So I don’t think I’m qualified enough to answer your question: you’d better ask it directly to the Holy Spirit Who inspired Paul.
I do not have the time or the inclination to disect or refute your citations and assertions. Suffice it to say you have not said anything new from previously and it all relies on a specific view of each passage.
Your basic argument and assertion remains.
You consider it essential that all think and believe exactly the same otherwise it is chaos
The idea that God is not so exacting is ridiculous becsuse of human intolerance and specific human citations, be they in Scripture or revered human theologians.
Ah well, there was a reason God didn’t just build an army of clones but it escapes you.
Yeah, you can attempt to hollow out Scripture until it means the opposite of the plain meaning of the text. With this method Scripture can be made to say literally everything (more or less).
The Church Fathers, for example, were by no means clones of one another. They agreed on fundamental matters, even as they disagreed and debated over less essential ones. And even when one of them (Origen comes to mind) held views that were later condemned as heretical, it was because the questions at issue had not yet been definitively settled. So this wasn’t about Origen putting his own ideas above the Church. *
But then again, the whole point about being clones is beside the point, since there was always room for debate on a wide range of matters. That, however, is very different from claiming that absolutely everything is open to doubt and dispute.
*From here Church Fathers: Origen, the Humble Teacher “In other words, he tells us in his own words that if official church doctrine condemns anything he wrote, he would too. Would we all have such humility to accept the fact that we might be wrong? Origen is wrong about stuff, but he had the foresight to say that if he was wrong, he was open to correction.”
It does not say what sound doctrine is. You are adding to the text by claiming that you have it, or that it is singular, or Catholic, or anything else for that matter.
Furthermore, my view is not popular, You certainly do not want to hear it.
Anything else?
Richard
Edit.
Oh, and by the way, I am not a self serving, glory seeking teacher.
Some men were in “Smarty Pants” Christianity. Some of the smartest people of a nation may have ended up priests. “Smart People” they may have felt that they needed to produce something. They needed to set themselves apart to show how smart they were. They needed to be different. There is a hubris there in being “smart.”
Let us start with Filioque. Someone may have lived and died, and gone to heaven, and never thought about Filioque. It didn’t matter to them. Someone found God, and had a personal relationship with God, and became close. He goes to heaven. Given the Patriarch of Alexandria or Antioch was making a big stink about something…it now matters. Given someone is wrong, they may have thrown people off, and been allowing in “Spirits Not God.”
Christ is to man as man is to woman. (1 Corinthians 11:3)
This is a particular FORM. This shows a particular authority. Given someone is off, like the Arch Bishop of Canterbury, they were allowing in “Some other spirit.” The Form they have is more aligned with Wicca, who believes in a mother goddess with a goat headed consort, or a variety of other similar things, coming form more similar people.
When we are talking about Theology, someone should be on edge. They need to be right and 100% about it, with no doubt and no fear, abiding in Christ, or say nothing at all. Being wrong, someone could throw generations of men into darkness. (Ephesians 5:8) God judges the false teachers more harshly. (Matthew 18:6)
Belief is different than Faith. Faith started with a belief. Faith is a journey, a personal relationship with God.
2 Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters,[a] whenever you face trials of many kinds, 3 because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. 4 Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. 5 If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. 6 But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. (James 1:2-6)
In this context, faith is a State. A state of having no doubt and no fear.
Faith as a Marriage. (1 Corinthians 11:3)
Man is newly married. He goes to work. He works a hard day. He is tired some. He drives home. He would like to relax, and not worry about anything for awhile. He comes home, and he finds his house clean, and dinner on the table. He didn’t see his wife clean or cook. He had evidence of things unseen. (Hebrews 11:1)
When her husband came home on time, and didn’t smell like a bar, with a pocket full of pull tabs, and he had his full paycheck, she had evidence of things unseen.
Over time, husband and wife may have grown in faith, a knowledgeable dependence of each other.
Several years later, they fell apart. Their marriage was rocked. She started giving him “Reason to doubt.” Doubt and fear kill faith.
I did not question the certainty of fauth I questioned the accuracy.
I have sn unshakeable faith but it does not seem to align with yours or many here. Who is 100% right? Not me but I neither claim.it or require it.
I wonder what God requires.
Paul was a perfectionist, it runs with his Pharisaic heritage.
Jesus was not a perfectionist. He criticised deliberate sin or over piety. He did not demand perfection. He demanded sincerity and effort.
If God demanded perfection He would not lavish forgiveness around. There seems to be a misconception that we are forgiven for God’s sake so that He can stand to be with us. That is rubbish. Forgiveness is for our sake, to encourage us and let us get past our shortcomings and errors.
It is humans who demand perfection. it is humans who strive for perfection. it is humans who demand justice for errors and imperfections, Not God.
Last time I looked the author of James was not God.
That reads like you were into some Gnosticism. The way you are talking about Paul suggests you believe he was off and not aligned. (Philippians 2:2)
A lot of people in 30 AD, they were in a Matrix of Lies, and they had been suffering. Jesus was bringing comfort. In the reality of God, there is also a fear of God. Jesus turned the water into wine.
God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son…he could have just destroyed the world with fire like in the days of Noah. A lot of people were dealing with wickedness and sin like they were in a pressure cooker or worse. Instead, God gave man Jesus, and a baptism by fire.
A group of Jews found a woman in the act of adultery. The community gave her a death sentence, and went to stone her. They ask Jesus about it. Jesus says “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Moments later, after they walk away, he looks at the woman caught in the adultery and says “Sin no more.” Did she sin more? Jesus could have had her killed, and still could. It is a matter of life and death. Sin no more.
The moral of the story is not that someone should not judge. The moral of story is don’t be a hypocrite. The woman was scapegoated. How many of them had been at the Temple of Baal or were likewise in adultery?
There is:
Human perfection, and what man believes is sin. False perceptions.
Godly perfection. How God judges sin.
God is Holy and separate from separate from sin. Heaven is closeness or oneness with God. Sanctification is a process where someone was being made holy to be closer to God. If you have not been through sanctification in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, through his Holy Spirit, you should be worried.
It was a probing question or statement. A man may be surprised how often people spill their beans. They were often eager to talk to someone who understood, and to express themselves.
