Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem, on the other hand states that for any sufficiently powerful formal system (i.e., powerful enough to describe the standard laws of arithmetic) there are statements that are true within that system, but which are not provable as theorems. There is also a Second Incompleteness Theorem that states that any formal system that can prove its own consistency is perforce inconsistent. These theorems place fundamental limits on the power of formal systems, inasmuch as they assert that no formal system can capture every true statement about its domain of applicability.

If you really want to learn about the Incompleteness Theorems, you can hardly do better than Douglas Hofstadter’s book “Gödel, Escher, Bach”. It has excellent descriptions of the theorems and their proofs and is very accessible to non-mathematicians.

Hope that helps.

I think this calls for a short study of the etymology of those two words, catholic and protestant. The word ‘catholic’ comes from the greek kaqolikos, which means, quite literally, ‘universal’. Many protestants, knowing the origin of the word, would claim to be a part of the catholic, universal, christian church. As for the word ‘protestant,’ one may argue that the word just means “one who is a witness before.” This, however, is not the historical origin of the word. During the early years of the reformation period the term protestant was used to describe a collection of princes and imperial cities who had protested against the decision of the 1529 Diet of Speyer and enforced the 1521 Diet of Worms. The Diet was the parliament of princes of the Holy Roman Empire. That said, using the very old, original meaning of the word ‘protest’, I would not be against someday all christians being catholic, protestant, orthodox (the third being another former word of contention). I like to think that these rifts, as divisive as they are, eventually allow us to find further words to describe and explain what it means to be “Christian”. I hope that the words stop dividing soon, but unifying. But this will all indeed take time; God’s time, not our own. :)

From this, we can certainly see that Paul must abhor our modern state, with thousands of Protestant denominations. But we cannot arrive from his statements to any condemnation of the one, holy, apostolic and universal Church. For Paul rightly calls all Christians to be one, as Christ is one.

But how can we be one without some authority to tell us what is, and what is not, part of the teaching of the apostles? They are not here to speak for themselves.

Nor is the Bible self-sufficient. There are thousands of Bible believing congregations out there, each teaching slightly (and sometimes significantly) different things, each claiming to be following the clear words of the Bible.

No, if there is to be unity, there must also be those to whom God has entrusted stewardship of His Church.

I follow the faith as passed down by those stewards, the successors of the apostles. For that reason, I am part of the Church, which is sometimes called Catholic, or “Universal.” Those who attempt to be Christian but refrain from full communion with Christ’s Church are the ones who fall foul of the verses you cite.

It’s just sad that there is apparently nobody who wants to do the first part and it’s really making the state of Linux IM clients miserable (since Pidgin is the best one in many areas).

You cannot ignore the larger society that we are embedded in if you want to achieve true reform of Christian lives. This does not mean that Christians are justified in doing whatever simply because it is acceptable to the larger society. We are called to a higher standard. But it does mean that we must work to bring the standards of society to be more nearly in line with our own standards.

And you are completely backwards — you don’t reform society to reform the church, you reform the church to reform society. Or so Jesus thought. But what’d he know? ;-p